Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 24: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:13, 24 November 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 November	25 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (gas) @ 22:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMX Resources

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

Please comment on the significance of the article ..... Alferdomach (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that the fact that a publicly traded company is listed on a major developed country's (Australia's) public stock exchange is a strong claim of notability. Also the company has regional significance as the first company to open a new iron ore mine in South Australia in over a century, and the first in Australia to utilise the rotainer system for iron ore exports. Danimations (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has not provided a valid deletion rationale. The article in The Australian indicates notability, probably more available if some legwork was done. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:11, 26 November 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-admin closure) Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 22:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WPG Resources Ltd

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

Significance ? Alferdomach (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that the fact that a publically traded company is listed on a major developed country's (Australia's) primary stock exchange is a strong claim of notability. A search of the Google News archives shows significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has not provided a valid deletion rationale. As Cullen suggests, additional sources can be found if some legwork is done. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:12, 26 November 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOVA-MBA Association

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

pure promotionalism; a good deal of the article is simply a list of sponsors. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can remove that section - agreed. But delete the entire page? Association does meet criteria of notability ... would keep no? Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the removed the controversial section on sponsors. Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no further comments are added, can the discussion be closed and the notice removed? Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Docyogen

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and WP:GNG with no significant non-routine independent coverage. Being champion of a second tier organization is insufficient to show notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG with no top tier fights and only routine sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:11, 26 November 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. Tone 16:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Yundt

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

MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA and the only coverage given is a link to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:10, 26 November 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. Tone 16:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Paulino

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

MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA and whose coverage consists of routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG (only routine sports coverage).204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No policy backed arguments have been made for the inclusion of this article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Mahdavi

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

No reliable secondary sources to show notability according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (WP:BASIC or WP:MUSBIO) -- Dalba 04:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop! Don't delete! I think the sources are completely reliable! We can see huge amount of Farhad's releases on iTunes of Apple and this is so reliable! Same to Beatport! I think this article should stay at wikipedia! With a quick search in Google we can see good results about Farhad's notability. Armin Van Buuren's support on Farhad's music is another reason for Farhad's notability. I'm disagree with deletion. Tranceman2000 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear POV issues, beginning with how as a child the subject played a toy keyboard. Notability is borderline at best, but on closer review doesn't suggest much. Kabirat (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabirat: So why delete? We can fix these minor issues. No need to delete whole article in my opinion... Tranceman2000 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tranceman2000: - Could you please specify which of the notability criteria on WP:MUSBIO is demonstrated in the article? Note that web sites selling his music (such as iTunes and Beatport) would not be considered sufficient independent sources. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tranceman2000: Notice that "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." (WP:GOOGLEHITS) Also per WP:MUSBIO, "release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" can't be used as source for proving a musician's notability. (All references to Beatport and iTunes are of this kind) -- Dalba 17:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalba @GoingBatty: So I'm here to explain Farhad's notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music):

According to Criteria for composers and lyricists: 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. One of the reason of Farhad's notability is big DJs supports on his musics! Armin Van Buuren The No.1 DJ in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 supported and played one of Farhad's track live in his radioshow A State of Trance and mentioned his name, Go here: http://astateoftrance.com/episodes/episode-594 The track number 22 is Farhad Mahdavi's Blue Rose. Armin Van Buuren mentioned his name by himself at 01:40:58 After a week his track ranked #3 as the best track of week with people voting in "Future Favorite" section: http://www.astateoftrance.com/episodes/episode-595/ . Paul Oakenfold the best DJ of the world in 2002 played Farhad's release In Ctesiphon http://trance.allmix.org/en/paul-oakenfold-/planet-perfecto-022- Farhad's track is in number 25

According to Criteria for composers and lyricists: 3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. Most of Farhad's track are an inspiration for young and newcomer musicians and music producers! They remix his melodies: http://www.bia2.com/music/2665 http://www.last.fm/music/Farhad+Mahdavi/_/First+Kiss+(Dreamy+Remix)

According to Criteria for composers and lyricists: Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria. His name mentioned as one of Orchestral Trance pioneers in Wikipedia long time ago and still not changed, So people know him as orchestral trance pioneer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplifting_trance#Current_status

According to Criteria for musicians and ensembles: 5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). Check his Discography, He have more than 50 releases in major labels with a long history

in Resources content one of the good online source is Allmusic search engine! So go there and search Farhad Mahdavi then you can find tens of results! It's not a reason of his notability according to Wikipedia terms? http://www.allmusic.com/search/all/farhad+mahdavi

Trance Music is a special genre of Electronic Music and notability in Trance is not easy to find like other genres. At all I'm sure this article should stay at Wikipedia. He have most of the conditions of a famous producer. I'm totally disagree with deletion of this article! Tranceman2000 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. "DJs supports" does not make a recording a notable composition. If it's notable, it should have at least one of the conditions mentioned in WP:MUSBIO. Can you write an article about any of his compositions? Also A State of Trance's selected tracks are sometimes promotional, or they are announced during the show in order to help promote new artists. It does not meen that the artist is notable. (IMHO)

3. ". . . who meets the above criteria". Please refer to WP:COMPOSER #1 and #2 for those criteria. Remixes by "young and newcomer musicians and music producers" does not meet those criteria. Also we can't use Wikipedia as a source here. (WP:CIRCULAR).

5. Is any of those lables listed here?

Allmusic is good "to find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US". But All music's database includes over six million digital songs! Surely most of them are not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.

-- Dalba 21:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. No it's not promotional! He played several times, Also same to Aly & Fila they played more than 10 times his music, not only as a voice only, There is mroe than 500 tracks got released per week, but A State Of Trance have only about 20 tracks. So it can be a reliable as a good source. Don't forget he is the best DJ of the world right now according to rankings. 5. This list are for Acoustic Music, Not for Electronic Music. Farhad have even a better labels than other artist who have pages in wikipedia, for example Blue Soho Recordings ranked #6 best Trance label of the world in a good ranking. Nobody can sign with this major label. I think I said enough reasons for keeping it in Wikipedia, If the Wikipedia team want to delete it without according to the sources I said then I can't do anything. A State Of Trance is the best radioshow of Trance music and one of the best Radioshows in Electronic musics at all! Nobody can find a reliable source like it. I think wikipedia prefer normal weblogs with unknown people than A State Of Trance by Armin Van Buuren Tranceman2000 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, sources are not reliable, Fails WP:Music, probabely self-published. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Spada2: I said enough reasons for Farhad's notability, Also this article didn't write by himself, I'm a Trance Fan and one of his fans, I'll create more pages for big Trance Producers if this article approved in Wikipedia. I started creating pages for Trance Producers with Farhad but this kind of excuses for deleting will stop my article wrriting in Wikipedia. Tranceman2000 (talk) 16:02, 30 November 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, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Owings

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

Unsourced article about an MMA fight who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. The only links are to his own web page and his fight record at Sherdog, so he also fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:09, 26 November 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. Tone 16:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Hosman

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

Unsourced article about an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA. The article's only link is to his fight record at sherdog. Papaursa (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:08, 26 November 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AgentSpeak

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

The article seems to be self-promotion of the article creator's own product and sources. It needs secondary sourcing and evidence of notability. I have nothing against the subject, product, or article creator, but hope to generate enough interest to see that these concerns are met and the article brought up to speed for keeping. As it is now, it's woefully deficient. The COI problem is quite evident. Just as we have "biographies" here, not "autobiographies", we shouldn't have articles created by those with a significant COI. I'm sure participants will be able to point out even more relevant arguments for deleting or keeping this article. I sincerely hope that the result will be enough improvement of the article to justify keeping it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that no AfD notice has been placed on the AgentSpeak page, so isn't yet a proper AfD discussion. --Mark viking (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD should not be used to, "Generate enough interest to see that these concerns are met and the article brought up to speed for keeping." ~KvnG 18:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no clear consensus to delete the article at this time. Furthermore, User:BullRangifer is reminded to place a notice on articles brought here, and to not use AFD as a method for improving an article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason (multi-agent systems development platform)

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

The article seems to be self-promotion of the article creator's own product and sources. It needs secondary sourcing and evidence of notability. I have nothing against the subject, product, or article creator, but hope to generate enough interest to see that these concerns are met and the article brought up to speed for keeping. As it is now, it's woefully deficient. Just as we have "biographies" here, not "autobiographies", we shouldn't have articles created by those with a significant COI. I'm sure participants will be able to point out even more relevant arguments for deleting or keeping this article. I sincerely hope that the result will be enough improvement of the article to justify keeping it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cant include every piece of software on wikipedia, maybe it will reach notability later.Ottawakismet (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that no AfD notice has been placed on the Jason (multi-agent systems development platform) page, so this isn't yet a proper AfD discussion. --Mark viking (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD should not be used to, "Generate enough interest to see that these concerns are met and the article brought up to speed for keeping." ~KvnG 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Sanders

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

Fails WP:NMMA with only 1 top tier fight and WP:GNG because of no significant independent coverage. Article's only links are to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:08, 26 November 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-admin closure) buff bills 7701 16:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Collins (baseball)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player, no exceptional reliable sources to pass GNG; Google News only shows passing mentions. Wizardman 03:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We Would Have Played Forever is not an exceptional reliable source for what reason? Did you read the book? Is a google search the only criteria for whether an article has reliable sources or not? The former Google News Archive had many relevant articles from old sporting papers that are no longer freely available on the web. The fate of the Google News Archive itself should give you some clue as to the misplaced wisdom of tying notability to ephemeral web searches. Collins was a three time minor league all star while he was a player-manager. I wouldn't say that that is in any way "non-notable". It sounds fairly exceptional to me. If that wasn't enough, the team he was managing made it to the championships all three years and took the crown in one of them. He is one of the few player-managers to excel at both jobs. I do note that at the time of the creation of this article being a minor league manager was one of the criteria for baseball notability as was being a minor league all star. The nominator himself edited this page in 2008 and saw no need to nominate it for deletion back then because it was notable by the standards of 2008. Notability should be fixed. The fact that notability seems to rest on the shifting sands of editors' whims is one of the main reasons many people leave this project. Baseball Reference's Bullpen has had their notability standards established from day one and has found no reason to change them which may be why their small crew of editors has been much more fanatical and devoted than the editors on this project. Kinston eagle (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfDs like this are really tough. He doesn't directly meet the commonly cited WP:BASEBALL/N guidelines, but that doesn't necessarily mean he requires a delete. Based on his accomplishments and body of work as a player and manager, it is likely he was covered relatively substantially during his playing days - but with a name like "Steve Collins", it would be rather difficult to find corroborating sources with any ease. In part based on Kinston eagle's argument above, I would err to a keep just to be on the safe side. Alex (talk) 23:06, 24 November 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 Seymour (surname). Tone 16:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. Seymour

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

Incomplete disambiguation that is not particularly helpful. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this to Seymour (surname); not really worth deleting or discussing. Created as a redirect seven years ago, treat in that lightweight way. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seymour (surname), to which I've just added the third Paul and the Phil. PamD 00:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seymour (surname) as above. Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 26 November 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. Tone 16:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Butto

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

Former minor league baseball player. He did have a nice Mexican League career, so his notability by baseball standards is borderline, but no major sources to pass GNG. Wizardman 03:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He played in a top level national league, the Mexican League. A search of local newspapers in the cities where that league plays, which may not be indexed by Google, would be likely to produce significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Mexican League no longer confers notability under the revised guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Spanneraol. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing minor league ball doesn't show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 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. Feel free to renominate if so desire. I encourage people to expand and improve first. SarahStierch (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HeavyWeight Yoga

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

This is a purely promotional article for Abby Lenz--apparently the neologism is due to her--note the coincidence of her trademark with the title of the article. I am not convinced that yoga when practiced by overweight people is a separate encyclopedic topic. FWIW, this was actually accepted at AfC, and by an experienced editor, whom I have notified. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a promotional article. A Google search of the topic makes it clear that "HeavyWeight" is a brand-name, rather than a specific and distinct type of Yoga. Further complicating matters is that research supports yoga as an effective treatment for obesity. ^[1] However, I could find no support for the idea that obese individuals need any special type of yoga, including "HeavyWeight" yoga. The "sources" cited in the article are relatively weak, either being linked to Lenz, who has the majority stake in "HeavyWieght" yoga's success, or random blogs, often cited multiple times. Even the articles cited in this article refer to "HeavyWeight" yoga as "making yoga accessible to plus-sized men and women." It's just yoga, marketed to obese people. If it deserves mention at all, while I believe it does not, it would be on the Yoga page. SaffronOlive ( talk ) 21:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is genuine and notable yoga practice. HeavyWeight Yoga was a part of the documentary "All of Me," 2013's documentary audience award winner at the Austin Film Festival. It's a film about obesity and weight loss surgery included in the PBS Independent Lens series for 2013-14. Lentz is on a panel this week conducted by KLRU TV in Austin. Civic Summit: Obesity, Weight Loss and Body Acceptance explores the complex issues and experiences surrounding obesity and weight loss. The panel is hosted by a CNN reporter Seema Mathur. http://www.klru.org/blog/category/civic-summit/ Existing references include the "Yoga Beyond Fitness: Getting More Than Exercise from an Ancient Spiritual Practice" book by Tom Pilarzyk. US News and World Report supports the idea that obese individuals need special yoga. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2013/04/10/yoga-for-people-who-are-overweight-or-obese The sources for the article include newspapers, American Fitness magazine reporting, Pilarzyk's textbook, and health reports from major network TV affiliates. During drafts of the article, a Wiki editor said "The problem right now is not sourcing - the sourcing is great!" The article's language was adjusted to a more encyclopedic tone.

As for the comment about "random blogs," I don't know what that means; One of the cited blogs is operated by the Orlando Sentinel. Obese individuals need a special type of yoga, including "HeavyWeight" yoga." Any other comment here ignores the challenge of any student in a yoga class who tops 300 pounds. These people cannot get a starting point to use this ancient practice, because of their body size, using regular yoga practice. "Can you come up to standing from the floor?" Many obese people cannot, but this condition gets treated in a HeavyWeight Yoga class. Inversions, for example, are seriously contra-indicated. Comment upon the article: Gene93k says that "It's just yoga, marketed to obese people." Where are the sources for that statement? It appears to be an opinion written by a person who's not overweight/obese and practicing yoga. Brand-name? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikram_Yoga is also a brand name, but no one wants to sweep that article out of Wikipedia. While this article went through several editions during its vetting, I began to wonder if some sort of size-ism was going on during the editing process. Obesity is an epidemic in Western countries that's killing millions. This practice is unique in its language and its modifications of the 24 foundational poses. I submit that a certified (yes, 200 hours) yoga-trained editor would be the best judge for the uniqueness of the aspects of this practice. Ronseybold (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only I am not convinced (like the nominator) that the topic is sufficiently notable on its own to merit a separate article on Wikipeida, but I am convinced that the specific trademark name that is the title of this article does not merit its own article. If anything needs to be salvaged, merge it with another article. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An experienced WP editor has reported this is a well-referenced article. None of the sources used in this article are press release-based. Like so much else on WP, it's sourced from print and online reliable sources. Metro-grade dailies like the Orlando newspaper, which publishes its reports on a blog, for example.

This article began its name as a style of yoga, rather than the name of its founder. It's notable, but it's also new. Not so new that it hasn't already been noted by 3rd party independent published reliable sources. A practice of yoga that opens up that discipline of health to an endangered populace is notable. I hope there are very few WP editors who believe teaching obese people yoga is unworthy of a report in the world's largest encyclopedia. Again, use of a trademark as an article name is so commonplace on WP as to be expected. Names are trademarked to protect their creators. No, the article title was chosen not promote the trademark, but to identify this explicit practice of yoga.

The independent third parties have done their work to discuss this topic in its own right. This has been a one-year quest (so far) to get this topic included in WP -- and deleting it on the basis of trademark use looks inappropriate while I read the rest of WP....Ronseybold (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Achenbaum

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

Disguised advertising for an marketing institute. Person itself fails WP:GNG with less than 3000 Google hits. The institute promoted here has even less hits. The Banner talk 13:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Alvin Achenbaum entry in an attempt to address the weaknesses identified by reviewers, including adding reliable sources, including more citations for verifications, cleaning up the editing errors, eliminating its orphan status and neutralizing the POV. (I am his daughter-in-law but have tried to be impartial.)

I believe that the entry deserves to be in wikipedia because of the important contributions made by Achenbaum to the advertising, research and marketing industries from 1955 to 2005. There are no commercial or profit goals for the Achenbaum Institute. Achenbaum (88) is retired from professional work. He donated his papers to Duke University libraries at his own expense. His work is purely philanthropic. He has written a guidebook for marketers which is available for free download. He has endowed a grant program which underwrites travel for scholars of marketing and advertising at Duke. As one of the 100 most important advertising people of the twentieth century, Achenbaum merits a wikipedia entry because of his many substantial contributions to both intellectual thinking and business practices.

I think you will see more google hits to Achenbaum as scholars access his papers and marketers learn about his free guidebook. Barbachenbaum 16:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbachenbaum (talk • contribs)

- Wikipedia is not a media for promotion, even when it is about a free guidebook. Sorry. The Banner talk 07:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Squeaks by on the "100 most influential whatever" etc. He's been long retired so not suprising if there are few ghits. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 03:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 03:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Hosking

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

May fail our general notability guidelines and I'm also fearing the same in relation to WP:ACADEMIC. SarahStierch (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he's described as an "international expert on the prevention of violent crime"[1] and his work has been widely reported over a number of years [2][3][4] and he's been called to advise the Scottish Parliament [5]. This could probably squeak him over the WP:ACADEMIC threshold. Mind you, his work has been accused of demonising parents and there's rather a lot of flattering, uncritical WP:PUFF in the article that needs removing. As for the 'Order of Zand', it sounds more like something from Lord of the Rings and I can find nothing online about it, other than draft Wiki articles. It's a bizarre claim that does nothing to inspire confidence in the article! Info was added and rapidly removed from en.wikipedia in 2010. Sionk (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough (if anything) on GS and GN. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
At best, weak keep though I seriously wonder whether WAVE is not a one-man band, and therefore how notable it and its directors are. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 24 November 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-admin closure) buff bills 7701 03:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Evans, Sr.

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

This does not establish notability independent of Good Times through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. John Amos was fairly outspoken about his views on the show's writing. As a result, his character was eventually killed off, and he was fired. I don't know whether that adds up to "real world significance", but here's some old newspapers that explain it: [6] [7]. In particular, this one talks about the characterization of Evans and how they creatively disagreed over the writing for this character (and J.J.). I dunno. Maybe it's enough to keep. If not, that's fine. Just redirect to Good Times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to be covered under the Cast conflicts in the main article, so it would probably depend if there is enough info to get more than a paragraph out of it. TTN (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know if the whole thing is enough to have a full-blown article on the character, but we at least have something to discuss beyond plot recaps. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:20, 24 November 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) 00:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Appomattox

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

Fails WP:NFF. I don't see any evidence that a deal has been actually signed, let alone filming has begun. Even the film's official website doesn't indicate that the series has been bought or that anything has happened except cast commitments. Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 10:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was supposed to film in 2012 and IMDb still has its status set to "pre-producton". I'm betting the financing has fallen through, which is precisely why NFF always insists that filming must have begun. Betty Logan (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 03:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Hester Asa Moore

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

Non-notable fictional character. No reliable sources indicate that the character is notable separate from the fiction in which it appears. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Covered at List_of_Gemma_Doyle_Trilogy_characters#Staff_at_Spence. See no need for redirect based on lack of sources and a single what-links-here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established. TTN (talk) 19:07, 29 November 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) 01:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Eshel

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

Delete, claims significance but fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:CREATIVE. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has a lot of sources. However I'm ignoring the interviews and the announcements of appointments because he is an "emissary" or basically a PR representative for Israel and will of course be giving interviews and announcements of appointments as part of the job. What's needed is independent sourcing about Eshel, not sources that would likely exist for whoever held the position. A search of site:.il turns up very little as well including Hebrew. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although personally, I would like to recommend keeping the article. I am a Jew who has visited Israel twice, and off-Wikipedia, would likely be positive to him. However, though I am sure that he is a fine person, he is also simply nothing more than a second-tier consular official tasked with promoting tourism to Israel within a region of the United States. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep this article I think that we are missing the point here... it is about his "out of the box" activities, I watched the Biblical series he made - The Bible Comes to Life, and I think it is brilliant, not something a typical "civil servant" would create. I understand why he got the "Rising Stars" award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colombus1492 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wit Way

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

Unsourced article about a video game. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:NVG. - Mr X 02:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced software article of unclear notability; A search did not reveal any significant coverage. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:15, 24 November 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, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Saddest Landscape

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

No clear notability established. smileguy91^talk 03:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So far I'm leaning towards a weak keep. There's just enough to assert some sort of notability here, although I'm going to try to dig a little deeper. The reviews aren't from exactly mainstream sources, but they are on sites that look to have a good editorial staff to where they'd probably be the rare exceptions to blog sourcing. But like I said, I'll dig a little harder. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find much beyond reproduced tour and release announcements. --Michig (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I see that The Saddest Landscape gets some coverage from reliable sources like Rock Sound, Spin, Alternative Press, etc., however it all appears to either be a trivial mention or a press release statement about an upcoming tour or release of an album. The GNG also urges for sources to have a lot of detail so one can write a reasonably detailed Wikipedia article on the subject. I don't believe a reasonably detailed article could be written on The Saddest Landscape based on the sources I have seen. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:15, 24 November 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 NHL Entry Draft. If editors want to start articles like this before their time, then they should do so in their userspace. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2016 NHL Entry Draft

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

WP:TOOSOON. This event is still 3 years away. ...William 00:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions....William 00:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions....William 00:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly way too soon to even have an article on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NHL Entry Draft. We may as well just save ourselves the time here. Dolovis has a history of starting empty articles because he wants to be the first editor of pages. Having seen this many times now, I'll tell you how this goes: This article gets deleted because it is obviously stupidly premature. In a couple years when we begin to collect concrete information on this draft, the page gets recreated by someone else. Then Dolovis will request undeletion of the history so he can once again lay claim to the first edit. So why waste the time? Just redirect it until the people who do maintain these articles find a use for it. Reso lute 01:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We simply don't have a lot of information on it. One draft pick trade and a possible host. I wouldn't be against Resolute's suggestion either. Patken4 (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It cannot be said that it was too soon for this article to have been created given that a trade involving a 2016 NHL Draft pick had already been made. WP:TOOSOON applies only if there are no sources to verify the topic. One does not have to look past the sources already included in this article to conclude that this topic is itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources,[8][9][10][11] and there are also other sources now discussing this topic, including sources examining the top prospects for this draft.[12] If this article is deleted, there cannot be a scintilla of doubt that this article will need to be recreated as soon as additional trades are made. To delete this article would only cause extra work and confusion when it comes time to enter new trades, whereas keeping this article allows such trades to be recorded in a timely, informative, and appropriate manner. Dolovis (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speaking as the person who currently does most of the editing regarding traded NHL draft picks around here, this article should be kept as it is. NHL teams do trade draft picks two full seasons before a draft is scheduled to take place and being able to add the information right away would make my editing a little easier. It makes no sense to remove this article because if it is deleted the article will just need to be remade early next year. I do recognize that there likely needs to be some guidelines set up to determine when an NHL Entry Draft article should be created, but that should be left to the discretion of WikiProject Ice Hockey to figure that out. Deadman137 (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect as per Resolute. Way to far in advance. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Deadman137 and Dolovis. Also, WP:TOOSOON doesn't appear to apply here considering there are sources which verify the event's existence. Not to mention that picks have already been dealt for the 2016 draft, so deleting the article at this stage would be decidedly counterproductive.--Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 00:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 24 November 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, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris wood (actor)

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

Not notable actor, doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, also I can't find anything about him on the web Alex^{discussion ★} 05:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rising star, passes basic notability requirement, Articles needs fixing, have done it a bit.--Stemoc (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. When I was first searching, I thought I was going to vote delete as too soon because it seems he's only recently started The Carrie Diaries role and, although he's had two stage productions and one episode of a TV show, I thought there simply wasn't much about him (which I still stand by). For the Damn Yankees role, I only found two additional links here and here (which are minor mentions with some photos tossed in). A Google News search for The Carrie Diaries showed some links and blogs (including from some blacklisted websites) and a browser search provided nothing different. So, again, I'm on the fence because this could be too soon especially if they cut him from TCD but then again he is at least getting some attention which may lead to more in-depth coverage. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one substantial role. Beerest 2 talk 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and his first role is what got him noticed, The episode he will 'debut' in premiers today which means within the next 7 days, people will be searching his name..infact already in the last 6 days since creation, his page has been viewed over 3000 times which will double in the next 3 days + this is similar to Brett Dalton who also had ONE substantial role and his article created the day he made his debut on Agents of SHIELD....--Stemoc (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also WP:TOOSOON. If, and that's a big if, he makes a big impact, then the article can be recreated. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and already over 5400 views since creation, should reach 10000 in under a week..yeah its too soon but it will be silly to recreate this article again in 2 weeks..actually, i did all the hard work updating it ..hehe...This is how it looked when it was tagged for DELETION.--Stemoc (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an actual policy to support your position? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the ONLY reason the article was "AFD'ed" was because of the link i provided above, If i was an admin, I would have deleted it straight away. I have improved the article even though i'm not in the habit of improving other people's messes. Apart from that major role in TCD, He is a stage actor and thus qualifies under Number 3 of the notability policy. He already passes the basic criteria due to the recurring role in a MAJOR broadcasting network series and I have well referenced both his stage acting and current and upcoming tv appearances. I refuse to add more links to the article to avoid making it spammy...+ it already got over 2100 views over the last 24 hours and already in the Top1000 in starmeter rankings at IMDb--Stemoc (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of sources provided, you should know that IMDb generally isn't considered a reliable source, as well as this (a mini-profile), this (very short, minor news) , and this ('tis obviously just a passing mention in a small news), which left us with one reference from a source that is rather primary. Moreover, you should normally wait until deletion process is over to rename the article. Alex^{discussion ★} 10:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS And take a look at his 'filmography': only minor roles in a few episodes of series that we don't even have an article here on Wikipedia, and one movie that actually lacks enough votes to even have the IMDb rating! Alex^{discussion ★} 10:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You should check your link again, that is not one of his movies, the title you are talking about is "Borderline" which is actually an episode of The Carrie Diaries which you can actually find here, again please do proper research next time, the only other title is the television pilot for "Browsers" which is a high budgeted pilot from Amazon studios and also, if you look at his page, you will see this [Up 1,150% in popularity this week] which for those who do not understand IMDb, means his imdb page views went up by that percentage, his current starmeter rating (which everyone who deals with television/films related article relation know shows the popularity of a person..his starmeter rating went from 9450 to 752, which means he is the 752 most viewed person on IMDb on a list which consists over 5 million people which obviously carries onto his wikipedia page which currently has just under 9000 views and rising...He has roles in not one but 2 major shows + a stage actor and has been nominated for 3 awards which I didn't list in the article yet..one of the 3 requirements for notability is to have worked in multiple titles which also mind you includes stage work.--Stemoc (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to IMDB as well, personally, IMDb is MORE reliable than wikipedia as everything is SOURCED, referenced and DOUBLE CHECKED before being allowed unlike wikipedia where anyone can add anything, with our without source...and secondly its a very good Primary Source when it comes to CASTING news and if you even understood how SOURCES worked, you won't bother saying that...and maybe you should learn than when an article is NOMMED for deletion, before you try to get it DELETED, you have to do your part by trying to fix it..Notability is MORE important than the content and the person is notable and thus the next step is to FIX the article which is what i did...and fixing the capitalisation was AS important as fixing the articles content....and again DO NOT ever move an article that has been FIXED even if its on an RfC or an AfD.--Stemoc (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Borderline notable, just not enough for me. And I hate miscapitalized articles. jni (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the capitalisation but it was reverted back by the nominator..again i urge people to look at the page history, the way it was created deserved a speedy deletion but i fixed it and it currently has over 11,000 page views, its not WP:TOOSOON because before his TV career, he was a stage actor..even if it gets deleted, I will re-create it because it silly to to delete an article for such a silly reason..I have seen worse getting kept.--Stemoc (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a stage actor does not automatically qualify someone; they have to be notable. Any Tonys? Broadway credits? No. Your threat to recreate the article regardless is likely to get you in trouble here. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"even if it gets deleted, I will re-create it" and watch as it gets deleted again per G4. Also, you shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy but delete for now - This is a compromise of keeping the article but away from article mainspace for now until he can at least get some more information and attention. My vote was also "Keep for now" so I was on the fence but I think compromising this would be good. I've searched since his TCD appearance and he's gotten a little attention but it's probably only the aftermath of TCD and I think he could use a little more. SwisterTwister talk 16:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT YET (actors). Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:01, 29 November 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-admin closure) buff bills 7701 16:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohizam Shah Dawood Shah

(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 the articles creator on the grounds that he had played in a professional league. This is false. He has not played above the second tier of Malaysian football, which is not confirmed as fully pro at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the creator of these two pages nominated for deletion. Thank you for all your hard work patrolling Wikipedia pages. I would like to propose not to delete these pages, as Arif Fazlie has played during Perak 2009 Malaysia Super League campaign, and Mohizam Shah are currently on the books of Malaysia Super League side Felda United (he signed on April 2013). I have modified their pages to reflect on these changes, with citations. Again thank you for your concern and consideration. Fringe fighter (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Shah Dawood has never played in a fully professional league despite claims, Perak FA were in the Premier League when he was with them. Arif Fazlie is a technical WP:NFOOTY pass as he appears to have played a couple of games in an FPL, but I am not convinced there is sufficient for GNG here. Fenix down (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Fenix, Mohizam Shah never played for Perak FA. Arif Fazlie does play for Perak FA during 2009 season. Mohizam however has played for Felda in Super League games this year after signing for them in April, mainly as substitutes.Fringe fighter (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arif Fazlie but Delete Dawood Shah, because the former does pass WP:NFOOTY, if barely, and the latter because he hasn't played professionally. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Narutolovehinata5, Mohizam Shah has played for Felda in Super League games this year. I believe since Felda is a Super League club and the matches are part of Super League fixtures, he has played professionally. I have put a citation here for proof: a match report of Felda against Terengganu FA (http://sports.digitalfive.com/malaysian-football/news-highlights/top-news/newsid/292153/kecederaan-effa-sentap-ceria-tganu) (it's in Malay, though). He played as a sub.Fringe fighter (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. The lead section of WP:N says (with original highlighting):
A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.
Creator has produced sources to confirm both have played in the Malaysia Super League, which is listed at WP:FPL and thus sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTBALL, which is one of those listed in the aforesaid box on the right. The function of the subject-specific guideline is to provide a bright-line decision-making process, so that the article on a presumed-notable subject isn't deleted just because the article about that subject doesn't yet demonstrate general notability to the satisfaction of those of us here, myself included, who don't have ready access to relevant media in a language we couldn't read even if we had. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 24 November 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 Memorain. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mercury

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable musician. - Mr X 14:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Memorain - Memorain is the band which this person plays for. He is already mentioned there. As for notability, I don't think this person has done anything significant outside of his band work. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:21, 26 November 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) 00:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CAM editor

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

Contested prod. The refs supplied after the contested prod don't meet WP:RS and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dude I'm still working on this article and your deleting i? I started work, upgrading it, less than a week ago, and now you have nominated it. scope_creep talk 22:57 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Sources are not independent: they all trace back to the software author, David Webber, or to NEIM, where Webber sits on the Technical Architecture Committee. - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your evidence that the current sources all point to David Webber? What your saying can be merely conjecture. scope_creep talk 13:12 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the sources? Reference 1 is the sourceforge Wiki. History says written by [Drrwebber. Reference 2 is a power point presentation that indicates it is from a NIEM training event - as I said above, Webber is on NIEM's Technical Architecture Committee. Reference 3 is a Youtube video uploaded by Webber. Reference 4 is a NIEM blog with an 'about me' section that indicates the blog belongs to Webber. - MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant, independent, reliable coverage to establish notability. A search reveals blog posts, but no RS coverage. As above, several of the refs currently in the article are not independent as they were written by the software's author.Dialectric (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the only open source XML editor which has been specifically designed to implement the Content Assembly Mechanism for use on the NIEM project, which is a USA wide, public sector project. It's a huge project. It is clearly notable!. Sure the sources are not fully independent, but a reading of the documentation associated with the product, show's that it is notable. It's a developer product. You're not going to get a ton of stuff on Google News. For MrOllie and Dialectric to show up, and say it's the sources are not notable, is a misreading of the information available.WP:RS are merely guidelines, not words written on a stone. To say that the product, doesn't warrant a page, when it so clearly does, is a fundamentalist viewpoint. It's worth a page. scope_creep talk 18:52 17 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the editor most forcefully recommending keeping the article openly admits that it hasn't received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If the topic is so "clearly notable", then clearly, it would have already obtained such coverage, and it clearly seems it hasn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 24 November 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) 00:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kadodiya solar park

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

Poorly sourced article about a solar plant. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 15:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas meagerly sourced commercial spam. The nominator could have prodded first. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Leaning delete - not finding any coverage in reliable sources. However, Indian-language sources may be available, hence the "leaning" nature of the !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find evidence of notability. ~KvnG 00:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 16:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Tulaev

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Article lacks non-trivial independent references. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do a little research, he is a huge name in Rodnovery and Russian New Right. Rather than promoting deletion, do a little research and you also can find the relevant information, and citations. Help me make this article as good as it can be with verified information rather than simply requesting a deletion. He is as well known as David Duke and Stephen A. McNallen, if not bigger, but maybe it is because you are limited to English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.230.125 (talk • contribs)

Comment - The onus is on the author to provide adequate references to support the article. If you cannot do so, the article may not survive the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources may be in any language, can use Google Translate. Please list sources, here or in the article. The best sources are in magazines, newspapers and journals that are about (but not by) Pavel Tulaev, more than mere mentions significant coverage. I'll try to find some but don't speak the language so a native speaker who knows the subject will have better luck finding sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a case of WP:FRINGE. Claims to be a historian. Associated with white power groups. The history books are undoubtedly negationism, as is the case with all these groups, outside mainstream. As FRINGE, requires coverage in reliable mainstream press, sources that are not white power associated such as this true believer source "Speaking the Truth". His Cyrillic spelling is "Павел Тулаев", searched through the first 20 pages of GHITS and see a lot but nothing mainstream. Keeping an open mind however if someone can produces a lot of sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More independent references coming soon - mainstream and non WP. Please bare with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎92.233.230.125 (talk • contribs)

No problem. BTW you can sign posts with four tilde marks like this: ~~~~ (I added a "unsigned" to your last post above since it wasn't signed.) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 24 November 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. A7 as well Secret ^account 15:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chitral Today

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. All the sources used in the article of poor quality that can't be relied upon for establishing notability. SMS ^Talk 15:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 16:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: One of the sources cited is a wikipedia article which can't be cited as a source at all. I find only one non primary source [13] in the article. This source is kind of more about the journalist who owns Chitral Today and the paper gets a bare mention. I guess this paper is not notable yet. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:09, 24 November 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.

I am Shocked The Article about the one and only news website of Chitral and Kalash Valley i.e. Chitral Today has been deleted without consensus -- Mirajbibi (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 02:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar Academy

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

Fails WP:ORG. No reliable source to establish the notability of this organisation. SMS ^Talk 15:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I wasn't aware earlier that this article was recreated after a previous AfD, so in that case CSD#G4 also applies here. -- SMS ^Talk 16:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added this reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw it during WP:BEFORE and didn't find it a reliable source. I don't mind if it is used in the article to support that two lines but it is not useful in anyway for establishing notability. Even if it was a reliable source, it hardly say anything about the subject as required by WP:ORG. -- SMS ^Talk 10:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After redrafting this article I added more references, please remove the deletion template. -- Mirajbibi (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — Mirajbibi (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Akbaralighazi (talk • contribs). -- SMS ^Talk 21:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have added are not reliable at all. Per Notability criteria for Organizations, there should be:

reliable sources, covering the subject significantly. I am unable to find any of these attributes in the sources you provided and also they discuss the subject trivially. -- SMS ^Talk 15:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per general notability guidelines. I can find no independent sources in LexisNexis treating the academy. There is one currently cited source, the Dardistan Times, that may be independent (I don't know), and another Dardistan Times article was linked in the earlier AfD. That doesn't seem sufficient to establish notability. The fact that both come from the same publication also does not inspire confidence. Cnilep (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Godfrey

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

MMA fighter with only 2 of the 3 required top tier fights (both losses). Since he hasn't fought in almost 3 years it seems unlikely he'll get that third fight. Papaursa (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Some concerns within the article have been addressed; presently there is no consensus in this discussion to delete the article. Additionally, regarding the comment about a potential merge, feel free to initiate a merge discussion on a talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prosa SA/SD/RT Modeller

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

Non-notable software, based on Google hits for "Prosa SA/SD/RT Modeller", with or without the quotes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prosa is notable Structured Analysis Tool

The title of the article has been changed to Prosa Structured Analysis Tool, which correlates better with the content of the article. Also now the title has full words instead of acronyms which makes the title much more expressive. The article title fully conforms the Wikipedia recommendations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_article.
—Largo Plazo has strongly justified the deletion on the basis of Google hits.

The search Prosa "Structured Analysis" Tool produces 1970 hits
The search Prosa "Structured Analysis" produces over 2000 hits

The results of the search are high quality articles, where exist also scientific articles and conference papers.

In the search one concept is Prosa. The second concept is "Structured Analysis". This already fully defines the intended search. You may add the third concept Tool, if you want. The search "Prosa Structured Analysis Tool" used by the user —Largo Plazo is incorrect, because it necessitates the concepts in a fixed order. E.g. the text "Prosa is a user friendly Structured Analysis software" does not produce a hit with that kind of narrow search.

3. Prosa is notable

Prosa is in every-day use in numerous notable companies all over the world in industries like telecommunications, automation, car manufacturing, machinery, banking, insurance, defence/military, etc. Prosa has established a leading position in the Structured Analysis tools (during the last several years).

Prosa Structured Analysis Tool is an important article and valuable content for Wikipedia users. The article deserves a position in Wikipedia.

Hannu lehikoinen (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For background to what Hannu is talking about, see our discussion at his talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about a merge of this one and Prosa UML Modeller into a single article on both the company and its products? We generally do not create new articles on every product until it becomes notable (in the Wikipedia sense) by itself independently of the company. Generally arguments about notability are more persuasive if evidence of notability in the form of independent sources is included in the article citations. Generally it is easier to create one well-cited article that sticks around instead of two that go up for deletion. And of course we are not debating if the subject is "important" or "valuable" since those are subjective, but if the subject has independent sources. Company seems to be in Finland, but even sources in Finnish would be better if, for example, a local newspaper would cover them, or trade publications (beyond the "advertorial"). W Nowicki (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prosa Structured Analysis Tool is a itself a very notable tool in many areas of the technology. We have now added references to the article to prove that.

Structured Analysis and UML Unified Modeling Language are completely different kind of approaches and there is no reason to mix them in one article. Also Wikipedia has separate articles for them.

Keep Prosa Structured Analysis Tool in Wikipedia - it is valuable article for readers.

Hannu lehikoinen (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Temporarily) moved back to Prosa SA/SD/RT Modeller while discussion in progress, per WP:AFDEQ. -- Trevj (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The product has been about for about 23-25 years, which deserves an article alone, the article itself is well written, and it has primary and secondary sources, and you want to delete it. Why? scope_creep talk 00:20 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to delete it. I thought, after doing some searching, that it warranted deletion for the reason given above. At the time I initiated this discussion, there was no evidence in the article that the product is notable, there was no evidence via Google that anything with the name indicated by the article had been covered anywhere, and the article had no secondary sources. But that's what these discussions are for. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its been used by two separate groups on two continents, which I think satisfies WP:GNG and the secondary sources seem to valid. It has been on the go for half the time that software itself has existed. It deserves a page.scope_creep talk 11:58 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing a lot of claims of notability, some of which incorrectly assume that notability is inheritable from, e.g., the company or the general software type. What I'm not seeing is citations to reliable sources that demonstrate notability. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eggishorn claims that the sources of our references are not reliable and they thus the references do not prove the notability. The authors of the articles are software professionals, researchers, scientists, journalists, etc. The reference list contains IEEE Software magazine, IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, IEEE European design automation conference paper, Microprocessing and Microprogramming journal, conference papers, etc. All those are really RELIABLE - every article has been reviewed by many professional independent reviewers. The references have been published in the most respected medias, conferences and other channels in the system and software engineering business and science. Every professional in this technology area knows and follows e.g. IEEE and quite many of them belong to the organization.

The other Eggishorn's claim is that we somehow try to inherit notability from, e.g., the company or the general software type. Prosa SA/SD/RT Tool V1.0 was released in year 1986. So Prosa is a pioneer and a technological innovator in SA/SD/RT tools and SA/SD/RT method development. Others may have inherited from Prosa. And Prosa has kept its strong position in SA/SD/RT.

Everyone must understand that the notability of this kind of special tool (Prosa SA/SD/RT Tool), which supports a special methodology (Structured Analysis) cannot be compared with notability of some general purpose tools like word processing software.

Keep the article and thanks. Hannu lehikoinen (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Firstly,everything has to pass the same notability guidelines, so special pleading on behalf of a subject doesn't make much sense.
Secondly, my comment has been turned on its head. I'm not claiming that the cites are unreliable. In fact, I wasn't claiming anything at all. What I intended was that, since the cites in the article were unconvincing to those that nominated this for deletion, those that want to keep it should be presenting more cites. Instead we just see multiple comments that say "It's important!" See, for example, this essay:"Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability".

Of the verifiable cites in the article now, one is a manual from the software company, and the other two are academic papers over a decade old. These latter two essentially just confirm the software exists and does some form of modelling. Surely there is some software or engineering trade paper with a mention or release announcement that is more recent that could be presented to bolster the case? Again, I'm not voting either way. I'm pointing out that repeating claims of notability without further evidence isn't going to help the case for preservation or the article itself. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One note for Eggishorn: notability isn't temporary. If references available from ten years ago would have sufficed to establish notability ten years ago, then notability persists to today and beyond. However, Hannu: the reference to the M. Tervonen presentation isn't an independent source because Mikko Tervonen is, along with Hannu Lehikoinen, a cofounder of Prosa. As for the last three sources, which are off-line, do they focus on the software itself, or do they just mention in passing that the software was among the tools that they used in performing the work they are discussing? —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I also know that ten and twenty-year-old references for supposedly-current software aren't considered persuasive by many other editors. So I thought perhaps pointing this out could explain to Hannu what he might need to address. Maybe I was wrong and three more 20-year-old cites would sway the day (technically, I suppose they should). I don't know. What I do know is that discussions about rules and claims about importance are secondary to additional evidence of notability. Additional evidence which, again, I don't think we've seen. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while I initially intended to close this discussion, the discussion got too off-track to really have a good result. Having done my own evaluation of the sources, the sources cited are either instruction manuals, or mentions in passing in sources which are not about this software, but only mention and perhaps briefly review it as one possible piece of software that does this. Passing mentions do not establish notability and are insufficient to sustain a full article, and the length of time the software has been around is irrelevant to that as well. While not in itself a reason to delete, the article currently reads like a glossy brochure, and the dearth of reference material makes this largely unfixable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After calling for further references to support this article, they have not been forthcoming and I am unable to find any other substantive coverage. If, at a future time, the editors connected to this company can provide those references, then it should be able to be recreated with no prejudice (and keeping in compliance with WP:COI, of course). --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for adding at least one new substantive source, Hannu lehikoinen. The Nokia case study, while it has issues from a purely academic point of view, is enough to show that it is notable within the software design community.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issues raised above have been corrected in the article:

Notability issue: New reference added.
COI issue: Two reference list references, which you have raised to discussion, have been removed (SA/SD training manual + Tervonen's article). SA/SD training manual has been move to External Links.

Hannu lehikoinen (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make Up For Ever

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

Article about one of possibly hundreds of brands directly or indirectly owned and/or retailed by LVMH. A CSD was declined after further sources were added. However, a close examination of all sources shows:

Reuters is not about the subject at all. 'Makeup Forever' has one of the shortest and most fleeting mentions possible which cannot possibly be regarded as a reference in any way.
Sephora, is a primary source about a chain of retail stores owned by LVMH. The mentions of Makeup Forever are only in the names of some of the products in the online store. Nothing here that could even be broadly construed as 3rd party articles about the subject.
philly.com Blog contribution by fashion writer Elisabeth Wellington to a possibly not very notable local e-zine.
Nigel beauty another online store that sells Makeup Forever products. Does not in any way confer notabilty. May confirm that the brand exists, but any other mentions on that site are purely advertorial.

Fails WP:GNG, and/or WP:ORG (for the brand). Notability of this product is not inherited from the company(ies) that own(s) the brand or that owns the retail outlets that sell it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a shred of evidence of notability in the article, nor, as far as my searches have been able to find, anywhere else either. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep - My searches actually found some news articles like this (Italian Vogue) and this (Style.com/Condé Nast) and Google News searches found quite a bit such as this (Google News archive of 2006 Philippine Inquirer with original article here and another from that newspaper here, "How I Made It, Times Online" (dead link but original article available for purchase here), here (Sacramento Bee article) and NY Times article (from last year 2012). It seems that the person Dany Sanz is not notable as she is basically best known for this but it seems the company has received better coverage. I also found a brief article Elle and I also found a three page news article here from northjersey.com on November 6th. Google Books also found some results although all of them are not great though there is one 2003 Elle edition. I also found a W Magazine interview here. It seems they have received considerable coverage in the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates (found 1 dead article). I tried searching at Glamour magazine but found nothing. I performed another Google News search here which not only found French articles, it also found The Independent (UK), Manila Today (PH again), La Provence (short French article), PhilStar (short article but mentions creation partnership with Japanese laboratories), here (a little promotional-sounding Q&A but does have info) and finally this (Toronto Star article that mentions Sanz worked with Givenchy, Vuitton and Christian Dior). Additionally, it seems the LVMH means Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy so that may indicate some notability. In my last search, there are also some Italian articles but I don't speak Italian or French so I can't help with translating. The Philly.com article the nominator provided actually has some good info too, mentioning Sephora (a well-known cosmetics store has carried them since 2001). I'm still a little divided because (1) it doesn't seem they've received that much in-depth coverage but (2) there are still some articles from notable newspapers and magazines here. I would like to hear other users' comments whether this may be notable and, if so, should I begin improving. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of links:

Elle The magazine itself is a reliable source, but this is a product listing with advertorial in its online store.
NorthJersey.com Local news site. About th opening of a store.
Google search results page Not admissible.
The Independent Reliable source. Possibly adds to notability but could be paid-for advertorial
Manila Standard Today needs reading to evaluate if this ads to notability
LaProvence regional news and general purpose web site. Possibly reliable. Article about the famous Moulin Rouge using the products.
The Philppine Star blog post/advertorial
The Philppine Star blog post
Toronto Star Archives Don't see any mention here.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge Not really appropriate for a separate article , but could be merged into a list of products. All fashion products get publicity. If they're a major product line, they should get an article, but I don;t see that here. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: What do you think about redirecting to LVMH#Subsidiaries? SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but a line or two of content should be included. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'm willing to do it. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 24 November 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. Tone 16:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jairo Cuevas

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

Former minor league ballplayer, no exceptional reliable sources for it to pass GNG. Wizardman 16:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Not notable~~.--Yankees10 16:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently fails WP:Athlete and WP:GNG.--Yankees10 17:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Alex (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - Meets WP:BASIC.~~ News source examples include articles that focus specifically upon Cuevas: [14], [15], [16], [17]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem routine to me.--Yankees10 04:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ROUTINE regarding what constitutes routine coverage. The sources I provided focus specifically upon the subject, rather than sports scores, announcements, etc. Also, the coverage expounds upon the subject after the events concluded, going into more detail about the person, as opposed to being being "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events". Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles seem to only cover how the person performed in the game, and did not go into any substantial detail about him outside of that event. Spanneraol (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon consideration, I've withdrawn my !vote above. It's borderline, but the subject may fall just short of meeting WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable individual.Spanneraol (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Osplace 03:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not a notable person. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 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) 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo Julio Gallegos

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and the article's only references are to his web page, facebook, and twitter. He doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far from notable - as per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 15:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Stojadinovic

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and only routine sports coverage, so he fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG. No top tier fights or significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the notability stated on WP:NMMA. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 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. Tone 16:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rossford Public Library

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

The subject of this article is not notable (See WP:NCORP). There are two sources used in the article. The first^[2] is reliable, but just gives rote facts about the library that could be generated for any library. They are not notable statistics. The second^[3] appears to be a platform to self-publish library statistics. It does not appear to be a reliable secondary source. The second half of the article appears to be self-promotion or news which isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article (See WP:NOTNEWS). ParacusForward (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a library in a small town. Completely non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is significant coverage of the library's architecture and renovation. There is significant coverage of its history project. There is also some coverage of the library itself. The article needs some work but the subject seems to be sufficiently notable to meet guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I would change my opinion to keep at this point. I am impressed by the improvements Candleabracadabra was able to make to the article. I think this article now meets the general notability guidelines. ParacusForward (talk) 17:40, 24 November 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. Keeping this one, feel free to renominate if needed - but please start improving instead of nominating first :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Carter

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

Current sources do not appear to demonstrate notability. Mostly IDMB, broken links, blogs, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 03:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to really show that she's particularly noteworthy. Despite the article's assertions that she's Totally Notable, I can't find much of anything that actually talks about her. She has supposedly worked with notable people, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by that factor and we'd need some coverage that actually focuses on her. All I could really find is this rather negative news story. That it's negative doesn't mean that someone can't be notable, but the problem here is that this was the best source I could find. From what I can see from related articles, it looks like there's a definite COI (as there's a contributor called User:Releveent, named after her company). I'd actually recommend speedying this as sheer promo. I'll tag it as such, although someone might be misled by the claims on the article and assume that there's more notability here than there actually is. I only found one possible assertion to notability, an award for a film she produced. However since that's her only claim to notability that looks to have any sort of sources, we could always just redirect to the film itself. As far as the other claims of producing or having a hand in other things, I can't find any true coverage of any of this. The thing to remember is that projects tend to have many, many producers and people working on it. Having a hand in something that was completed doesn't always equate to notability for that person- we have to have coverage that focuses on the individual, which we don't have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: It does seem as if Ms Carter won a shared Black Reel Awards for A Beautiful Soul,[18] hinting that coverage is available even if not used. Perhaps we might look beyond this article's poor formatting and style and see just how it might be improved to serve the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only a non-notable individual, but seems pretty clear from the non-existent sources that this is just another vanity page. Rockypedia (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... to be quite fair, In actually looking it is found that this person is considered notable enough in her field to be quoted by media in such as Entertainment Weekly [19] nd Southern Illinoisan [20] and her work as a producer has caught the attention of numerous reliable sources, and she HAS received the recognition of her peers. Even without sources detailing the minutiae of her life, it could be seen that she meets the intent of WP:CREATIVE#3. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
  - Well, to be even more fair, and brutally honest, Michael Q. Schmidt, after a quick random perusal of your opinions on deletions, it appears that you weigh in only on (1) films and (2) people that want to be recognized as actors, and every opinion I've seen is either a keep or a comment that attempts to persuade everyone of the subject's notability, and it's difficult to take any of them all that seriously when seen in that context - that is, that you are pretty much 100% in favor of keeping every article about a film or actor that appears on Wikipedia. I don't know what your motivation is, I don't know if it's related to your own film career, but I guess it doesn't matter - how can the rest of us look at your opinion as an objective one when it breaks only one way, every time, seemingly regardless of actual notability? Rockypedia (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rockypedia... WP:ADHOM arguments are never helpful to discussion. Had you investigated further, you might have learned that I am a coordinator over at WikiProject Film, meaning my wishing to support and actually improve articles related to films and actors so as to better serve this encyclopedia is understandable. Worse, your statement that I opt to keep 100% of all film and actor articles is quite provably a false personal attack which I dislike even further. I opt for delete of such fully 50% of the time, and my policy and guideline based opinions are proven more often right than wrong. I understand and have written about WP:COI. So further research might have allowed you to find that I avoid articles related to myself or my film career. So before your false accusation of my having a COI escalates, I invite you apologize for any implication that my "motivation" is anything other than a wish to improve the project, and strikethrough your spurious personal attack. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah there Rocky. Please don't make any assumptions about Schmidt just because he happens to like editing predominantly film related articles. There is no rule that says that someone has to edit or weigh in on anything other than what they are most interested in. I can personally vouch for Schmidt's character here on Wikipedia. He's more of an inclusionist than I am, but he wouldn't argue for a keep without at least some reasonable basis for the subject's inclusion and when he can't make an argument, he does argue for deletion or incubation. I don't always agree with him, but his arguments are always based upon policy. Schmidt does not argue for inclusion based upon any conflict of interest other than wanting to improve Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, too, must speak in defense of MichaelQSchmidt here. I occasionally edit film-related articles and biographies, and I can't think of another active editor here whose judgement I trust in this topic area more than this one. He knows Hollywood very well, and has the skill and experience to evaluate the reliability of the sources. I don't agree with any editor here 100% of the time, but Michael's contributions here are valuable and impeccable. He is never far off base. It is fine to disagree, but a personal attack cloaked as being "brutally honest" is really "brutally unfair" in this case. I, too, encourage an apology. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article is salvageable and will finally have some time Monday afternoon (PST)(12-3-2013) to address issues and show notability under WP:GNG. If deleted before I get to it, I request userfication to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Holly Davis Carter with leave to return to mainspace when fixed up. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep - she looks as if she's on the borderline of notability which just means she needs a good write-up. Michael, you think you can do it? Neonchameleon (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do... but I have been immersed in real-world projects. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waldemar Zboralski

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

Article was recently deleted from Polish wikipedia (delete debate link) after long debate. Most serious allegations against the article were:
*original research (most of article was written by mr Zboralski himself) - same here, since article is (incomplete) translation of pl.wikipedia article.
*no reliable source - almost every source was 1) essay by mr Zboralski himself 2) interview with mr Zboralski or 3) confirming only part of the information placed in the article, or did not confirmed it at all (i.e. some sources did not mention mr Zboralski at all!) - same thing here.
After deleting embellished and false informations article about mr Zboralski was deleted due to notability rule. Article on en.wikipedia is only partial translation of deleted article from pl.wikipedia and same thing goes here (every of statement below was proved in mentioned delete debate at pl.wikipedia):
* Mr Zboralski did not became the first publicly known person who fell victim to secret Operation Hyacinth
* he was not the first person to publish articles on this subject in Polish press (it was proved that there were at least few more before him).
* Zboralski and his partner were not the first Polish gay couple married in Great Britain (it was proved that there was at least one other couple before them).
Same thing as on pl.wikipedia - after deleting false and embellished informations from article, we have biography of person that cleary doesn't complies with the principle of notability rule. ClanOXym (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reason for deleting this biography from English Wikipedia, because it was deleted from Polish Wikipedia - is no more relevant: I created there new biography of Mr Zboralski Marcinzalu (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately, Marcinzalu, Polish gay-hunters on Polish Wikipedia already canceled your editions there. SmallMonarch (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Commment: It seems that nominator is a single-purpose account: contribs... It is also worth noting, that in pl.wiki nomination was also created by an anonymous editor, with some disparaging remarks about Mr. Zboralski (it was later crossed out by admin and Polish ARBCOM member, Leszek Jańczuk).
But more on-topic: in Polish wiki the whole deletion process was quite controversial, and there were many good arguments supporting leaving the article in the mainspace. For example, I added info about Zboralski being called "gay Wałęsa" by the author of the book about gay movement in PRL. I think it clearly fulfills notability guidelines. BartłomiejB (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added info about Zboralski being called "gay Wałęsa" to the article. BartłomiejB (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - what difference my contribs log and/or contribs of nomination creator on pl.wiki does it make? especially when it turned out that the nomination was deserved, since article was deleted? Second - you're telling about "many good arguments supporting leaving the article" - I counted one, the one you mentioned ("gay Wałęsa"). "Many">"one", you know? And what's more importante - if there were so many good arguments supporting leaving the article, on polish language wikipedia, where every user could read not only the article, but every single one source... Why was the article deleted? Strange, isn't it? And BTW - be precise - words "więc niejako naturalnie został takim gejowskim Wałęsą" should be translated as "so he somehow naturally became the kinda gay Walesa". It makes difference, does it? Third - Krzysztof Tomasik is, pardon me for being brutally honest, average polish jurnalist - one of thousands. He is not well known in mainstream, he is not one of top jurnalists that you can see on TV at least once a week, or jurnalist whos articles are subject of debates in mainstream media. Publishing he writes for are rather niche, except for radio Tok FM, where he hosts one hour weekly program. Is this makes him some kind of "gay oracle"? And, back to topic, does fact that mr Tomasik mentioned mr Zboralski once make mr Zboralski notability enought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClanOXym (talk • contribs) 00:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "And what's more importante - if there were so many good arguments supporting leaving the article, on polish language wikipedia, where every user could read not only the article, but every single one source... Why was the article deleted? Strange, isn't it?" - there are some "cultural differences" (to put it mildly) between pl.wiki and en.wiki (and other countries in the West). Feel free to read this diplomatic cable from American embassy in Warsaw if you don't know what I am talking about... BartłomiejB (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I guest insted of write more then one of "many arguments" you decided to bring the discussion to matter of "polish homophobia"? Same thing happend in polish deletation debate (that's why there are so many <s></s> there) - lots of user who were against deletation had no real arguments for leaving biography, so they tried to bring discission to matter of "why this nomination is homophobic"... ClanOXym (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have created the article and I'm a friend of Waldemar.

Whatever has happened on Polish Wikipedia has no bearing on this discussion - it's actually quite interesting to see that the article was deleted without reaching a consensus.
Person who nominated the article has raised three point without substantiating them in any way with relevant sources, I don't quite see why we should take them at face value. If there are reliable sources which confirm those points they should be included in the article according to the NPOV policy.Michał Rosa (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you meen "the article was deleted without reaching a consensus"? During debate few users proved that lots and lots of included in the article informations are false, and what's left was not even barelly notability enought... All substantiations are within the article sources. It's not problem of lacking source, it's problem of misrepresenting or even distorting facts when it cames to put informations into wikipedia article. Which was brutally shown on polish wikipedia deletation debate (main reason of deleting article was that when you read what sources are really saying, the article turned out to be basically hoax(1)). Here we have simillar problem, although it's more complicated - most en.wikipedia user don't know polish language and have to trust "source->wikipedia" "translation". ClanOXym (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) when other users (not me!) read sources carefully it turned out that Zboralski was not founder, but co-founder of association, that he was not "first" but "one of the firsts", etc, etc. ClanOXym (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - just like BartłomiejB you are (strangely) not precise - are you sure you created the article? Or just (partly) translated artcle from pl.wikipedia? Article written by... Waldemar Zboralski? Article which most of "sources" were... Waldemar Zboralski homepage/articles by Waldemar Zboralski? And even those sources were often over-inflated? ClanOXym (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Mr ClanOXym , if in 2010 an British journalist Johann Hari "accepted" Zboralski as "veteran gay activist", why we refuse do it as well? I added material from "The Independent" about Zboralski mentioning. Radio Free Europe recognised him in 1988 as "independent activist in Eastern Europe" in communism ages. I added Radio Fre Europe's references as well. Do you accept it? SmallMonarch (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By the way: I think, Mr ClanOXym, you created your English Wikipedia account only for this one issue: to delete Waldemar Zboralski biography. Did you? I think so, because your only FIRST activity on English Wikipedia is: reporting Waldemar Zboralski for deleting... SmallMonarch (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mr ClanOXym, where ar the proofs for this allegation (URL address please...): 1) Mr Zboralski did not became the first publicly known person who fell victim to secret Operation Hyacinth; 2) he was not the first person to publish articles on this subject in Polish press (it was proved that there were at least few more before him); 3) Zboralski and his partner were not the first Polish gay couple married in Great Britain (it was proved that there was at least one other couple before them). At moment in WWW exists only resoureces, which confirm the opposite of yours declarations! SmallMonarch (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mr ClanOXym, this conference of Wikimedia, which took place in Berlin on 9-10 November 2013, should encourage all Wikipedia users to more edition for "diversity" and "equality". I am surprised, that you, editors from Poland, do everything opposite. It makes me very sad, that Polish version of Wikipedia doesn't recognise one of significant Polish LGBT activists. This is especially surprising, that Polish Wikipedia deleted a biography of Mr. Zboralski exactly one day after far right riots in Polish Capital City, Warsaw, during which a Rainbow Sculpture has been set on fire. LGBT symbol in Warsaw burned up on 11.11.2013 and Polish Wikipedia cancelled Mr. Zboralski's biography day after, on 12.11.2013. What a coincidence... Anyway, SmallMonarch is right:

Mr Zboralski did became the first publicly known, by his full name, person who fell victim to secret Operation Hyacinth
he was the first person to publish articles on this subject in Polish mainstream press.
Zboralski and his Civil Partnership was the first Polish gay couple married in Great Britain (it was never proved that there was one other only Polish couple before them in England).

For all this information exists enough resources in Polish WWW, which was provided in Polish biography on Wikipedia, but, yes but it has been deleted, Why, if it is well documented? Marcinzalu (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hope, that Polish anty-LGBT-wiper are here unsuccessfull with their try, to transfer their sick anti-gay ideology to our, English Wikipedia. At moment they still try do it, under the guise of caring of encyclopedic purity. Stay away with your Polish purity (racial purity maybe?) from English Wikipedia, OK? We care for our "encyclopedic purity and essentiality" by self, zrozumieli? SmallMonarch (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all activists are notable - only those who pass WP:BIO are, and he is not passing.. Some refs are reliable ([21]) but WZ is mentioned in in passing. Despite his commendable activism, he didn't seem to have achieved recognition by third parties that would allow his biography to be included in encyclopedia. I'd appreciate it if any arguments to the contrary would engage WP:BIO instead of WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, which I already am seeing above ("Polish gay-hunters on Polish Wikipedia", sigh). PS. On a sidenote, there is a Polish LBGT encyclopedia, http://www.homopedia.pl/ - with about as much success as any other Wikipedia fork (and it is not even using a free license). There certainly seem to be a small group of Polish Internet LGBT activists, which for some reason are convinced that LGBT topics are censored from Polish Wikipedia. I wonder if we are hearing them here... perhaps when they realize that Polish Wikipedia does not hate gays, it is just following the same rules as other Wikipedias towards all biographies (gays, straight, etc.) it will be an enlightening experience for them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it is just following the same rules as other Wikipedias towards all biographies" - that's hardly the case. For example, pl.wiki has the page titled Wikipedia:Notability - Catholic hierarchy, which says, among other things, that all Catholic bishops are automatically "notable". And this is the rule on pl.wiki. (For example, I was able to quickly locate three bishops without any interwiki links at the moment, but it is probably only tip of the iceberg (all means all, after all): pl:Józef Bonawentura Berardi, pl:Teofil Bromboszcz (this one would probably meet notability threshold in other wikis, too, however), pl:Roman Andrzejewski (biskup).)
Could you provide the relevant rules in en.wiki that say the same? Or in any other wiki, for that matter? BartłomiejB (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:BartłomiejB: Yes, see links at WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Remarcable, but WP:BIO says, WZ is notable enough to stay here. He is not Barack Obama, so why Piotr Konieczny expects WZ is notable like USA President? WZ is most significant veteran gay activist from Poland in communism ages, and please, get over it, Mr Konieczny and Mr ClanOXym - you can't change it. Even if you wipe him from here - he remains in TV-productions made about him by HBO, POLSAT, in all this books in Polish and German language and in Radio Free Europe, where hi have been mentioned. Accept it, guys.. SmallMonarch (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is probably most distinguished and honored polish LGBT activist, during communist in Poland he was the only man brave enought to fight with regime for freedom and dignity of homosexual people. He risked his life before 1990 and dedicated his life after 1900 to bring peace and justice for all LGBT people, not only in Poland, but also in UK and whole world - not only by creating all by himself biggest polish gay associations but also in his political activity. I can't see anything other than homophobia in questioning his notability - it's sad that nowdays people still hates gay people, witch this "debate" proofes :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.111.19.150 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this debate shows how big problem in Poland homophobia is. Only few days ago, 11.11.2013, during polish "independence day" there were a huge demonstration in Warsaw, polish capital city - thousands of homophobic, hitler loving nazis marched through the streets of warsaw, shouting about supremacy of the white, catholic, heterosexual peole. There were two finals of this sick happening - attacking group of squatters (some of nazis tried even to use bottles of gasoline to burn them alive) and burning huge warsaw sculpture - the raibow of tolerancy ([22]). And yes, eventhought this march was illegal, there were thousands of people there, thousands of people like Mr Konieczny and Mr ClanOXym, who would kill every homosexual just because they don't meet theire sick, homophobic, fascist criteria. Spirit34fcr (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should talk about notability, not about homophoby. If he is "gay Wałęsa", why number of entries was so small in the article about WZ? February 2008 - 185 entries, April 2008 - 210, April 2009 - 275, April 2010 - 245, April 2011 - 336, April 2012 - 330, April 2013 - 368. It means, he is unknown person and used wikipedia as a reclam. During AfD on pl-wiki even some homosexuals voted against notability WZ, because they never heard about him before. 91.238.85.142 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC) He even used as an argument in some of his publications "According to the Encyclopedia Wikipedia, I am the first who...". 91.238.85.142 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Polish anonymous user under IP-number 91.238.85.142 continues lies campagne of homophobic editors from Polish version of Wikipedia. There was cleary explained by WZ, that this "According to the Encyclopedia Wikipedia, I am the first who..." citation have been twisted by one of gay-unfrieandly person. This twiested information have been published after this material published in Polish on-line newspeper Gazeta.pl. Then information from Gazeta.pl appeared in Wikipedia, and just one month after than cam this, what number 91.238.85.142 try uses against this biography. You, number 91.238.85.142, knows it very well! And what a example is someone, who says, he is gay and do not know WZ? It must be someone, who do not read LGBT books and do not watch LGBT movies and as last, must be about 14-15 years old - such young people in Poland even do not know, who J.F. Kennedy is... So I recall for your information, what have been deleted from Polish Wikipedia: WZ is mentioned in 5 LGBT books in Poland; 10 years he was text writer for gay magazin INACZEJ; WZ was presented in HBO documentary "Homo.pl" - in televison and open presentations for LGBT audience; few times was presented in POLSAT-TV a documentary about his civil partnership in England; about Zboralski students hear in Warsaw University during queer gender studies; between 1999-2005 he was interviewed more then 20 times in all mainstream magazins and newspapers, in 2009 he and his husband was invited by Gazeta Wyborcza for discussion about civil partnership staright befor Gay Pride Parade in Warsaw. So, if somebody says, NOBODY knows in Poland Zboralski - so he lies. Badly and cruel lies or is cuted up from Polish LGBT culture and society. Such people exist as well, but such people lost ability to take a part on this discussion - are not qualified for it! SmallMonarch (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Number 91.238.85.142, this graph shows, that Wikipedia definitely and generally loses on people's interest... 86.135.135.65 (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

91.238.85.142 - this debate is about homophobia, since notability of WZ is out of the question. I think some kind of petition to pl.wikipedia is necesary since they deleted article about WZ for no other than homophobia reason, temp. bans for every user who was voting for deletation + perm ban for admin who unlawfully deleted the article Spirit34fcr (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rather than waste time trying to defend this article about a commendable but non-notable person, I'd encourage editors interested in LGBT rights in Poland to expand it and related articles on notable topics. Incidentally, one of today's featured articles on English Wikipedia is Tęcza (Warsaw), which I wrote recently. I can't help but wonder how many useful articles some people could create if they just refocused their attention from trying to write about their friends, or rant about perceived homophobia on Wikipedia, and wrote about notable LBGT topics instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First of all, let's cut through all the garbage up above about what is going on in the Polish Wikipedia concerning this subject. It is completely irrelevant as to what happens here with this article. The WP:GNG is admirably clear and direct, establishing notability for : "...a topic [which] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." Waldemar Zboralski clearly has. A profile of him and his husband on the website of the largest Polish newspaper is significant, independent, and a reliable source. An interview in the leading Polish LGBT magazine also qualifies on all three counts. Being called the "The gay Walesa" of Polish LGBT rights in an interview in a Polish leading newsweekly also hits those three markers. Yet another interview in a Polish monthly magazine continues the trend.

Let's put to rest all the nonsense about whether he "deserves" coverage or not. AfD discussions are about notability as established by appropriate guidelines, period. The question "Is such-and-such notable" is a technical one, and this gentleman qualifies under GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As was mentioned above, here is no place for discussing about pl-wiki. He was the most important gay activist between 1987-1989. By the way, the sources should be improved. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Eggishorn. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - it seems that the arguments used in the above proposal are false: he was indeed the first Polish gay to marry in the UK (or at least the discussion does not prove that it was not the case). It is an important figure in gay-rights movement in Eastern Europe and there is no reason to follow the conclusions of the embarrassing discussion in the Polish wikipedia. ziel & 08:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Comment is there any way to force pl.wikipedia to bring back this article? Since it was deleted only because of homophobic reasons, maybe Wikimedia Foundation should be informed and asked to take some actions, including banning people resposible? PawelKowinski (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, AFAIK Foundation policy is to not get involved in any capacity in cases like this. You may forget about "banning people responsible". Actually, they (ie. Polish Wikipedia admins) are banning people like me that talk about it openly -- I am currently blocked on pl.wiki for 3 (three) years, and one of the reasons provided for the block are my attempts to raise the issue: see here (it is official comment from blocking admin) and follow links no. 1 and 5: 1 is a link to Mr. Zboralski's AfD on pl.wiki, and 5 is discussion on BAR. (No.2 is also interesting - it is a link to discussion page of pl:Bradley Manning where I tried to persuade admins to change "Bradley" to "Chelsea" and change pronouns to feminine. I provided a lot of sources, and apparently they didn't like it.).
Excuse me this off-topic but I feel quite disgusted and lonely at the moment. I politely asked blocking admin for unblock, but to no avail. :-/ BartłomiejB (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the atmosphere there is so toxic it might be better just to stay away for awhile. Things will change but it sounds like that change will be slow. Meanwhile why not just edit here instead? Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good idea! Thanks. I am not going to circumvent the block or use socks or sth like that. I haven't done this before, and I am not going to do this this time. BartłomiejB (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I sincerely apologise for making this offtop even longer, but since the issue of BartłomiejB's ban on plWiki has aleady been raised, I'd just like to respond briefly, as in my view his account of things is rather misleading. Not all plWiki admins, especially those more liberal-leaning ones like myself, are happy with the way the deletion discussion about Mr Zboralski was conducted and concluded. Having said that, BartłomiejB's ban is based on a broad consensus among plWiki admins holding very different social views, both conservative and liberal, because we consider most of his recent activities to be an example of pure trolling. I don't want to make it even longer, so that's just a brief reaction and those of you who understand Polish can read BartłomiejB's edits and make your own judgement. Powerek38 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I replied on Powerek38's talk page, let's continue this there. BartłomiejB (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Strong keep - I agree that Mr Zboralski definetely is notable enough to be covered in Wikipedia, because of his significant role in the development of gay rights movement in the communist and then post-communist part of Europe. The fact that LGBT history is largely overlooked among Polish scholars and authors and therefore there aren't many serious publications covering this part of Polish history is a separate problem which should not diminish the importance of people like Mr Zboralski. Powerek38 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 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. Feel free to improve, expand, or renominate for deletion if so desired. SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavi (actress)

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

I was unable to verify any of the content here. IMDB lists three actors known as Pallavi and none appear to be this one. That may be a limitation of IMDB, but I couldn't find reliable sources to use in this article. It is entirely unsourced and if she did prove to be notable would need a fundamental rewrite. Michig (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting case! The article is written in such a promotional tone, that it is difficult to take anything it says at face value. The facts, if true, would make the subject easily notable per WP:NACTOR, but I am having a hard time conforming them using non-wikipedia sources. I'll leave a note at India prject noticeboard to see if editors more familiar with Indian film related articles and sources have better luck. Even if retained, the article will need considerable de-crufting and clean-up. Abecedare (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable actress in South India during the 1980s. The article mentions that Kumudam, a leading Tamil magazine published an issue on her. Articles badly written doesn't necessarily mean that they should be done away with. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we need to be able to verify that she satisfies our notability guidelines. The article has been here for five years without any sources. --Michig (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article about her on Hindu and one more which am not very sure. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

neither being an animal rights supporter nor being a political campaigner as described in those Hindu articles come anywhere near the threshold of Notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There simply isn't enough reliable sources to meet GNG and i don't feel those sources indicate enough notability.Blethering Scot 18:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete if the claims made in the original version were true, she would certainly meet the notability requirements. However, none of those claims appear to actually be verifiable and simply making promotional claims does not meet WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will easily pass WP:NACTOR. There are quite a few movies linking to article. Unverifiable claims can be removed and replaced with a Filmography section. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Startup ecosystem

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

This article has existed for far too long without ANY citations or references. Articles with citations, but that others find objection to, are deleted almost immediately. I'm holding the editors of this article to the standard that all articles must face. Either bring this article up to WP standards or allow its deletion. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's not a valid deletion rationale. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please say that you're joking, an article WITHOUT references or citations should be allowed to exist??? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added four sources to the article. The subject is notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU - I am happy to withdraw this AfD. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per my !vote in the first AfD: Preliminary source searches indicate that the topic meets Wikipedia's threshold of notability. Clicking on the Google News Archive and Google Books links above provides many sources and potential sources. E.g. [23], [24], [25], [26]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:32, 24 November 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. Sandstein 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Taylor (academic)

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

Unsourced BLP. No significant independent coverage found of the subject or his books. Michig (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject publishes under the name S Taylor. There are several such on GS but I can't find much for this one. I will be happy to change my vote if the article's proponents can cite further evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Largely unreferenced BLP. He's not in Who's Who or Debrett's People of Today. He is a "senior lecturer" with the "organisational studies" section [27], so he isn't a professor, or even an assistant professor. It does look like that he simply isn't notable enough, at least not yet. However he might qualify for WP:AUTHOR if reliable reviews of his books can be found. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, "senior lecturer" in the UK = professor in the US. Don't attempt UK academic noms if you don't understand the different systems.

Thanks, I am actually familiar with these systems Johnbod (talk · contribs), and since this was a British article, I think it's appropriate to use British terminology. Just throwing that idea out there. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If so, why say "He is a "senior lecturer" with the "organisational studies" section [28], so he isn't a professor, or even an assistant professor", when he very much is in US terms. There are very few "assistant professors" in the UK, and at best the comment will mislead Americans. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly he isn't a professor then. Great. Thanks for your agreement. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In local terms he is. Please don't be misleading to others. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for clarifying that the United Kingdom (population 63 million) is only of "local" significance, and now through this you have indeed unveiled my intentions - I like deliberately misleading people as I find it amusing to regurgitate plain facts taken from an academic's unversity's website without adding the necessary qualifications to delierately confuse stupid readers who would be mislead by the fact that in one "local" country, we have a system that is slightly different to the one used in the greatest nation on earth. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mainly on the impressive number of editions his no doubt incredibly tedious textbooks have racked up with major publishers. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with UK academia thanks very much, and a very large proportion of senior lecturers are not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But then few have books on their 8th edn with Prentice-Hall and 3rd with Oxford UP, etc. And anyone attempting to get the standard professional qualification for HR people will have to read an awful lot of Hall. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm somewhat sympathetic to Johnbod's arguments about the ubiquity of his books, but I can find almost nothing about this person or his books, except on the websites of people who employ or publish him. Even if we had sources saying his books were widely used, that might help him pass WP:SCHOLAR #1. But I don't think he meets any of the requirements of WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR (and all his books that were brought out by commercial publishers were co-written, one with 3 other people). --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of what seem to be standard textbooks, he meets WP:SCHOLAR #4 rather than #1. Big fat textbooks tend to be co-authored, & he has a finger in several pies here. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- He seems to be the author of serious undergraduate or postgraduate text books. The fact that he has co-authors does not change that. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as textbook author under WP:PROF, tho I think he'd meet WP:AUTHOR . it may be hard finding the necessary reviews. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod and DGG. Generally, we have kept authors of textbooks whose work has gone onto multiple editions. After a while, many textbooks start to aquire co-authors who will eventually take over most of the writing. FWIW, some textbooks are actually edited by their reviewers. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Sharar

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

Unsourced BLP. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. There are a few mentions, e.g. here and here, but not enough to establish notability. Michig (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not enough reliable sources available to meet WP:GNG.Blethering Scot 18:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Schockman

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

Only 2 top tier fights, thus failing to meet WP:NMMA, and lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two top tier fights were to different organizations and both were losses - chance of a third chance nil.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Cell Bus Club

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

This article refers to a defunct organization that may not even have been notable in its time. None of the cited references are still available, and it has been years since any substantial contribution has been made to the article. Dan Griscom (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These were trial public transport projects that successfully completed. The defunct websites shouldn't worry us. I think for history, we should preserve it, in case fuel cell transport becomes more common early pioneering programs will be notable. Information about the projects here.[29] Some updated history here.[30] When searching on the project names found other sources. I've updated the article so it's apparent the projects are completed. I think they should be kept together as one article not separate articles since they trialed the same technology and were done in co-ordination sharing data and partners. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The defunct websites would worry me even if not defunct, as they are not independent of the subject. That said, such a project strikes me as the kind of thing that is likely to be notable, and could probably be reliably sourced. Maybe it belongs under another title? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. this link provided by Green Cardamom looks like a blog or non-independent source at best. we need third party coverage like major newspapers which is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some sources follow.

Mason, Deirdre. "EU fuel cell bus trial extended transport for London Britain--low emissions public transport." International News Services Mar. 2006. Infotrac Newsstand. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
"TOWARDS TOMORROW." Sun-Herald [Sydney, Australia] 9 Nov. 2003: 33. Infotrac Newsstand. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Peter Hoffmann. "The Hydrogen Power Rush". The World & I, October 2002
"Iceland: Long days, hot nights - MENTAL FLOSS". Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ) - Sunday, July 30, 2006
Kris Christen. "Europe's CUTE project for hydrogen-fuel-cell buses deemed a success", Environmental Science & Technology. 8/1/2006, Vol. 40 Issue 15, p4541-4541.
"UK trails fuel cell buses", Power Engineer. Feb/Mar 2004, Vol. 18 Issue 1
Maack, Maria H.; Skulason, Jon Bjorn. "Implementing the hydrogen economy", Journal of Cleaner Production. Jan 2006, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p52-64. 13p. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.05.027.
Petrović, Jelica; Ivković, Ivan; Vujačić, Ivan; Žeželj, Srećko. "POSSIBILITIES OF BUSES ON ALTERNATIVE FUEL IN PUBLIC URBAN TRANSPORT IN BELGRADE", Technological & Economic Development of Economy. 2009, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p78-89.
COCKROFT, COLIN J.; OWEN, ANTHONY D. "The Economics of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses", Economic Record. Dec 2007, Vol. 83 Issue 263, p359-370. 12p. 10 Charts. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4932.2007.00426.x.
"EUROPEAN FUEL CELL BUS PROJECT EXTENDED BY ONE YEAR", Clean Air & Environmental Quality. May2006, Vol. 41 Issue 2, p22-22.
Maack, Maria; Skulason, Jon. "HOT ROCKS AND HYDROGEN", Power Engineer. Feb2003, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p14.
Saxe, M.; Folkesson, A.; Alvfors, P. "Energy system analysis of the fuel cell buses operated in the project: Clean Urban Transport for Europe", Energy. May2008, Vol. 33 Issue 5, p689-711. 23p. DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2008.01.001.
Carvalho, Luís; Mingardo, Giuliano; Van Haaren, Jeroen. "Green Urban Transport Policies and Cleantech Innovations: Evidence from Curitiba, Göteborg and Hamburg", European Planning Studies. Mar2012, Vol. 20 Issue 3, p375-396. 22p. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2012.651801.
Stolzenburg, K.; Tsatsami, V.; Grubel, H. "Lessons learned from infrastructure operation in the CUTE project", International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Aug2009, Vol. 34 Issue 16, p7114-7124. 11p. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.06.035
Haraldsson, K.; Folkesson, A.; Alvfors, P., "Fuel cell buses in the Stockholm CUTE project—First experiences from a climate perspective", Journal of Power Sources. Aug2005, Vol. 145 Issue 2, p620-631. 12p. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2004.12.081.
Vidueira, J.M.; Contreras, A.; Veziroglu, T.N. "PV autonomous installation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis, and its use in FC buses", International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Sep2003, Vol. 28 Issue 9, p927. 11p. DOI: 10.1016/S0360-3199(02)00191-X
"Fuel cell buses arrive in London, just Porto to go", Fuel Cells Bulletin. Jan2004, Vol. 2004 Issue 1, p1. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/S1464-2859(04)00039-2.
"Conference wraps up CUTE, next programs", Fuel Cells Bulletin. Jul2006, Vol. 2006 Issue 7, p10-10. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/S1464-2859(06)71128-2.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how many of these sources talk about the trials in detail. they seem mostly science based press, how about something in mainstream press? LibStar (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be useful references, but they don't seem to be generally available (in fact most are pretty obscure, and none seem Internet-available). Unless someone with access to them (you?) adds them to the article, indicating why each bolsters the notability of Fuel Cell Bus Club, they don't have any value. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please use WP:REX to verify. Sources don't need to be added to the article for determining the notability of a topic. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The trials in London were well known being covered for example by the BBC. Bearing in mind especially the extent of the trials, in many parts of the world, they pass for notability and the initiative is one that can suitably have its own article. I am sure it could be expanded. --AJHingston (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom added a long list of references above, but I'm still dubious. None of the titles mentions the topic of the article in question. Four of them mention CUTE, but that just bolsters the notability of a potential CUTE article. Without further evidence that these articles mention Fuel Cell Bus Club, let alone support its notability, I don't understand what place they have in this discussion. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The projects existed under semi-autonomous control, thus the sources approach them as individual projects within their regions. However the projects were connected, using the same technology and vendors and co-operative sharing of data, it makes sense to group them into a single article, there was an agreement framework that brought them together. The title of the article is a placeholder and less important, renaming can be done if there was consensus for a rename. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Crow Mother (band)

The result was KEEP by default as there was no consensus for deletion even after two relistings. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 00:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability? Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add sources and clean up; passes WP:NBAND since they won LMT summer sound festival 2013 as well as the 2012 Red Bull competition. [31] Alex^{discussion ★} 13:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeckie

AfDs for this article:

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

I feel so dreadful nominating this but my Wikipedianess won't let me avoid it. Please don't hate me Bleeckie, but, I fear that you might not pass our notability guidelines. There are a few local bits coverage, but, the nomination I don't think stands up to our notability guidelines and I can't find a lot of other decent sources. So, I bring Bleeckie back to the community to discuss it. She was deleted one time before. SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations to any sources at all, just a few inline urls. If there is a passionate user, perhaps it could be userified and maybe turned into an article on her creator, whose notability should in theory be a superset of the character. Especially a young artist might become more notable after more than three years, but is not yet. W Nowicki (talk) 18:05, 24 November 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) 01:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life Time Fitness

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

Finishing nomination for User:76.112.21.55, whose rationale was "Despite the efforts of a few people, this article remains a blatant advertisement for a fairly disreputable company and should be deleted in my opinion." I am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 22:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No real issues seen with the article, and nearly all health clubs have the same issues with billing and such. "Disreputable" isn't a good reason to delete an article. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Good arguments have been made by both sides in this discussion, but there does not appear to be a firm consensus available at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rational trigonometry

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rational trigonometry

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

The issue with the page given over four years ago has not been fixed. Simply put, there are very few actual other sources not involving the creator of the theory, Norman Wildberger which actually support the majority of the article, because nearly no one else has created sources that can be used in this article. Most other sources were irrelevant parts of the article, but are no longer valid and have expired. Most third party sources which do exist talk only about his book.

For this reason this article passes deletion criteria 7 "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and fails the notability guidelines. Clearly if there were any other decent resources on Rational Trigonometry they would have been found within the last four years.

Until this theory becomes more mainstream and others write papers which can be used as reliable third-party citations this page should be removed and a possibly section about it should be added to the trigonometry article, since at the moment this reads as an advertisement for Wildberger's book.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no clear opinion if this subject is notable or not, but I did note that several apparent sources were removed in an earlier edit [32] on the stated ground that those sources were "broken" and needed to be replaced by "newer" sources; it is unclear to me what "broken" was intended to mean in that context, or if that removal of sources was appropriate. Also, note should be taken of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman J. Wildberger in 2009 which resulted in the merger of that biographical article into this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @ Arx: The sources didn't exist ie the URLs linking to the "sources" must have changed, or the sources themselves just deleted. "new" sources refers to URLs that actually work. Sorry for the mixup. SohCahToaBruz (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should not be deleted solely because of URL problems. Sources are not required to exist online. Please see WP:LINKROT. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I've added in what I can, but I don't believe that changes any of my criticisms of the article, see David E's post further below. Thanks for the help. SohCahToaBruz (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Paul White (talk · contribs), in repeatedly reverting to an older version of the article without so much critical commentary against the topic, removed the AfD notice. I have reverted to the version with the notice and warned him not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd agree with the deletion of this page - the article has had a lack of third party sources for years and it's never been fixed. More important is the fact that it really can't be fixed at all, as the only sources that exist are the one book published on the topic, so all sources would be from the one guy - incredibly biased. In contrast to this, multiple sources exist from mathematicians which dispute and even disprove the works contained within the book on which this article is based, which provides solid evidence for deletion. 14.200.41.164 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources do exist, as noted below, which establishes notability. And nobody has "disproved" Wildberger; the debate has been about the practical benefits of the approach. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it far-fetched that anyone claims to have "disproved" any mathematics done by Wildberger, and if they've disputed some of Wildberger's views, I doubt that they've disputed any of his mathematical results. I challenge the anonymous poster above to demonstrate that that has happened. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Contrary to the nomination statement, there *are* reliably published third party sources: The New Scientist article, and the MAA review. However, the sources are all about the event of the book's publication, their existence does not distinguish this book from an enormous number of other mathematics books, and our article is not actually focused on the book but on its contents. I think the most relevant guideline is WP:NOTNEWS: this theory made a brief popular media splash when it appeared, but has not been demonstrated to have the enduring notability required to make it an encyclopedic topic rather than a news topic. Incidentally, the idea of simplifying certain calculations by using squared distances rather than Euclidean distances is a very useful one, but is far older than Wildberger's work (e.g. Cayley wrote about squared distances in 1860), so the usefulness of this idea cannot be used as a justification for keeping an article focused on Wildberger's contributions: it's not his contribution, even if he briefly popularized it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I changed the wording slightly of the nomination statement in order for it to be more accurate. Thanks. SohCahToaBruz (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Removing valid sources from the article and then claiming sources couldn't be found is extremely bad form by the nominator, who deserves a WP:TROUT. The deleted sources included a properly cited journal article (Olga Kosheleva, Geombinatorics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008, pp. 18–25), which I have restored to the article. Problems with the accompanying urls were no reason at all to delete the references (as has been noted). A quick Google books search also finds several mentions of Wildberger's ideas, e.g. in Shirali & Vasudeva (2010), Multivariable Analysis, Springer, pp 246-247; Harrison (2009), Handbook of Practical Logic and Automated Reasoning, Cambridge University Press, p. 414. Together with the New Scientist article, and the MAA book review, that puts it over the notability line in my view, and indicates an ongoing interest in Wildberger's (possibly nutty) ideas. His finitist approach is interesting particularly for computational mathematics and automated reasoning, however. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I noticed a claim by one of the editors above that there are no sources citing Wildberger's book. I understand this is the book "Wildberger, N. J. Divine proportions. Rational trigonometry to universal geometry. Wild Egg, Kingsford, 2005. xx+300 pp. ISBN: 0-9757492-0-X . If so, MathSciNet lists at least four separate authors other than Wildberger himself who cite the book. These are the papers that cite it (other than Wildberger's own papers):

− 1. Vinh, Le Anh A construction of 3-existentially closed graphs using quadrances. Australas. J. Combin. 51 (2011), 3–6.

− 2. Kisil, Vladimir Erlangen program at large-1: geometry of invariants. SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 6 (2010), Paper 076, 45 pp.

− 3. Shparlinski, Igor E. On point sets in vector spaces over finite fields that determine only acute angle triangles. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 81 (2010), no. 1, 114–120.

− 4. Kurz, Sascha Integral point sets over finite fields. Australas. J. Combin. 43 (2009), 3–29.

− While this isn't exactly overwhelming, it does go contrary to what was claimed above. Usually Google Scholar gives more citations than MathSciNet but I have not checked it. Tkuvho (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the "Notability and Criticisms" section mentions four third-party reviews of the theory. They are not ~~complementary~~ complimentary, so the theory may well be nonsense - but it does seem to be notable nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "not complimentary". I don't think Wildberger's framework is "nonsense", even though I personally don't find it appealing. It may well be of limited utility. Tkuvho (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Fixed above. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The theory is not nonsense. Wildberger tends to grandiosity in his statements about it, but it makes sense. It makes sense in some contexts to separate those parts of trigonometry that do not depend on the choice of a particular parametrization of the circle from those that do. That's what Wildberger has done. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is clearly a fringe theory (this is acknowledged in the body of the article). This is almost WP:original research, as nobody has claimed that the theory has been useful for him or that it solves pre-existing problems. The content of the theory consists only in replacing the distance by its square (which is not new as quoted above) and the angles by the square of their sinus (which prevents to consider oriented and obtuse angles). Thus this theory is very similar to tau (2pi) proponent (consisting in replacing, for similar biased reasons, pi by 2pi), but it is much less notable. D.Lazard (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that it consists ONLY in replacing the distance by its square and angles by the squares of their sines. Rather, in conventional trigonometry, one parametrizes the circle by arc length, whereas in rational trigonometry one does not rely on any particular parametrization of the circle. And it's not "original research" in the sense intended in Wikipedia's policy, because it's not published for the first time in a Wikipedia article. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the 56 sources returned by Google scholar for the search term "Rational trigonometry" wildberger -author:wildberger http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22Rational+trigonometry%22+wildberger+-author%3Awildberger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.19.189 (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The scarcity of strong secondary source support suggests that it is at least "too early" for this topic to be in an encyclopedia. I think this topic will just have to wait until it catches on in more places. Rschwieb (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say ""too early" for this topic to be in an encyclopedia" and yet it appears in the "Encyclopedia of Distances" http://books.google.com/books?id=QxX2CX5OVMsC&pg=PA81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.227.185 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nice try, but I think it's clear from the context I mean "an encyclopedia like Wikipedia," not an obscure encyclopedia in which the topic is likely to occur. Rschwieb (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A subsection in the trigonometry page stating the basic idea of the theory, with a link to an external website with more resources on the idea is appropriate. However, there's no way that this topic is notable enough for its own article at the moment. Most of the "sources" are reviews of the book, not actual sources for the article itself! Ijeusjb0 (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some confused ideas about what Wilberger has done appear above, so let's be clear about those:

In conventional trigonometry, one parametrizes the unit circle by arc length. What seems to me to be the essential idea of "rational trigonometry" is that one does not parametrize the circle at all. Rational trigonometry comprises those parts of trigonometry that can be done without any choice of a parametrization of the circle. One is not viewing functions of angles as functions of a parameter that maps to a point on the circle. One is measuring triangles without measuring circles. Measuring triangles by measuring circles goes back at least to Ptolemy's table of chords and permeates many fields of mathematics. One couldn't do Fourier analysis without functions on a circle. Wildberger separates from that the things that can be done without parametrizing circles.
This paper says Wildberger's "spread", a function of an angle that is not defined as a function of a point on a circle, "allow[s] the development of Euclidean geometry over any field". Wildberger's work on geometry over finite fields is part of the relevance of this subject.

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might be more impressed by this argument if I had some idea what it means. "Do geometry of triangles without using circles": well sure, just don't mention circles, but saying what something is *not* is not a helpful way of saying what it is. One can describe colors subtractively as well as additively but it doesn't work so well for mathematics. There are standard ways of doing projective geometry over any field (or even rings), but of course they don't have proper distances either. Is there a clean axiomatizable way of describing what this work *adds* to projective geometry? How would we go about recognizing a "Wildberger geometry" and what examples are there of these things that are not just standard pre-existing geometries with some of the details filed off? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to "what it means". Of course, you find that out from Wildberger's book, but here's a start. Suppose you have lines through the origin in Euclidean space spanned by two vectors (x₁,x₂,x₃) and (y₁,y₂,y₃) (but the dimension need not be 3). The square of the sine of the angle between them is a rational function that is homogeneous of degree 0, of the coordinates of the two vectors. One defines that quantity, the "spread" between the two lines, directly without using the radian measure of the angle by parametrizing the circle by arc length, etc. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this review of the subject itself continuing here? The correctness of the work is not relevant at all. The issue is the weakness of citations. Rschwieb (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rschwieb, you have already mentioned "scarcity", "obscurity", and "weakness", but I am still not sure what you are referring to. The book was published recently and already has over 50 citations by authors other than Wildberger. For a trig text that's not bad. Tkuvho (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Tkuvho : If one were to take your sentence as "support", then it is scarce (only one) obscure (the Encyclopedia of Distances or Wildberger's book, whichever) and therefore weak. However, I suspect you did not intend that to be a complete support. Can you provide a statement summarizing the full support for the book? I've seen the Encyclopedia of Distances and four citations listed above (one of which, Shparlinski, appears to be a department colleague of Wildberger's) I would like to take a look at them. I would also appreciate knowing which book you're pointing to as having 50+ references. Thank you Rschwieb (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschwieb, the book in question is Wildberger's "divine proportions, etc". The google scholar link listing over 50 references was reproduced above. One of them is the article by Kosheleva mentioned above. this was not reviewed in MathSciNet possibly because it is not a mathematical journal. Tkuvho (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was common sense that self-published books are considered poor references unless corroborated by other strong sources. Are there two or three other texts? Rschwieb (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this self-published? Kosheleva's article appeared in the journal Geomcombinatorics. There is also an article by Maurice Craig in the The Australian Mathematical Society Gazette. The google scholar list may be a bit padded but there are definitely published articles there. Tkuvho (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wildberger owns the publishing company that published "Divine Proportions". It's the only book that they have published. See http://wildegg.com/. SohCahToaBruz (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I didn't realize that. At any rate his latest piece is Wildberger, N. J. Universal hyperbolic geometry I: trigonometry. Geom. Dedicata 163 (2013), 215–274. Geometria Dedicata is certainly a reputable journal. Tkuvho (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkuvho : Hm, it still seems like you aren't on board with what is going on here. The number, recency, and journal reputation of publications by Wildberger are all irrelevant data. What is relevant is a substantial record of publications by other authors in secondary and tertiary sources about the topic. Rschwieb (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschwieb, my last comment was not a response to you but rather a response to User:SohCahToaBruz who found fault with the book being allegedly "self-published". As far as your request for articles that cite Wildberger, I gave some examples above. Further examples are mentioned at the parallel discussion of spread polynomials here. My impression is that there is a record of secondary sources that is sufficient to establish notability in this case. I am not particularly impressed by Wildberger's theory and his philosophical quest to eliminate infinity from mathematics, but this does not undermine the notability of his framework. Tkuvho (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that addresses anything SCTB said, and also s/he was just spelling out my objection of self-publication, which anyone with two minutes and access to Google should have discovered: please forgive me for confusing it for a response to me/us. The articles listed above could be considered weak secondary support. I think it seems pretty common-sensical that support for the two articles shouldn't be balled together unless that article is merged as a subarticle of this one. Separate topics, separate citations. Rschwieb (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other page should be merged to rational trigonometry; I voted there accordingly. Tkuvho (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about a book! It's simply not relevant. Ijeusjb0 (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Rschwieb (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spread polynomials. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe theory, lack of sources supporting most of the article. 220.237.238.134 (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ... ummm, I'd vote to keep it is was shorter and meatier and made the point succinctly. I think that pedagogical reform is worth debating and having: too much grade-school math teaching is stuck in horrid, arcane 18th/19th century conceptions of math; perhaps the 'spread' could help fix some of this(?) So, for thease reasons, Micheal Hardy is correct in arguing for keep. But this article does not seem to be about pedagogy, its something else... My experience with fringe-theory articles is negative: they accumulate nutty cruft and crap and bizarre, incorrect claims over time, and can be real time-wasters to try to clean up. In such cases, its just simpler to delete. Which is why I recommend that this article be shortened, if it si to be kept. User:Linas (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I recommend that this article should be removed, and then remade if/when it meets the notability criteria, because it certainly doesn't yet. Especially since the book is essentially self published Themekenter (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage and mentions in other sources to suggest that it is at least a mildly notable fringe topic. The article could surely use editing to make it more readily understandable and probably shorter. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cupid Kidz

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

Unsourced and no evidence of notability. - Mr X 18:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have nothing against chocolate sauce-covered artists per se, but this band would be of questionable notability even with WP:RS backing up the article's claims, and without referencing I cannot se any good reasons to keep it. Tomas e (talk) 15:08, 27 November 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. Soft deletion as an uncontested PROD (NPASR). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This soft deletion was contested on my talk page by User:Hobit, and thus the article was restored as per common procedure for contested PRODs; then redirected to the series article per Hobit and for reasons similar to those found in this AfD for another game in the series. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Submachine 4: The Lab

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

Does not pass WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Given source is primary. Search hits only show short and catalog/list entries, mostly in context of the series. Nominating alongside recently created Submachine 3: The Loop although for notability reasons and not the other nominator's argument. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:00, 24 November 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) 00:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maulers

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

Delete as non-notable fictional entity. Quis separabit? 19:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A11. Then redirect to Mauler, a dab page which I will now create, or to Maulers, Oise. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maulers, Oise, as suggested by Clarityfiend. Warden (talk) 10:45, 24 November 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) 00:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Hern

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, passing mentions only. One of a glut of of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable businessman with a few mentions in books of questionable reliability/independence, but nothing significant and in-depth. It sounds like Campbell & Ehrenfried or the Myers family might be a more notable topic, and he could be mentioned in an article on them. But there must be a question mark over whether book The Myers is a reliable source: it's an authorised biography[33], is produced by a company that does a mix of legit and vanity publishing[34], and co-author Paul Goldsmith has according to his article been accused of being secretly paid to write biographies. The other published source, John Tamihere Black and White, is an autobiography by a friend of Hern's son. The present article is bolstered by quote-mining: notability requires comments/analysis by the author, not quotes which are primary sources. I was amused when researching to find the following

"Devon Hern." Kraven said, reading off a pad. "Uncaught serial killer. He has tortured and murdered 300 men, women and children."

But that's from fanfiction.net which is definitely not a reliable source. So, serious question marks over the sources, and no clear evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The Myers is by Dr Michael Bassett and Goldstone. Michael Bassett is, occasionally, a serious historian. Above contribution be Colapeninsula is greatly appreciated though.Rick570 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Hern in that book is not non trivial. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ made an important contribution to NZ liquor industry and is well-referenced in two reputable sources.Rick570 (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote twice. Important contribution according to who? Article might have a lot of references but none are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about Hern. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete As per nom. Fails GNG. Lacks multiple, independent sources and therefore fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:15, 26 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reina de Quito

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

Non-notable, only working link is to facebook. JesseRafe (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; already adequately covered in the Fiestas de Quito article which was created a few minutes later, though it is problematic in itself for its lack of references. AllyD (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Sheahan (publican)

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

Not notable. Played for Auckland (what team, what level?) and New Zealand Barbarians but both fall short of WP:NRU. Lacks coverage about Sheahan in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Captain of the Auckland Rugby Union team.Rick570 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to a source in the article, and the article itself, [35] he captained the Auckland provincial rugby side, and played first-class rugby in New Zealand. This alone makes him notable. Article could use a bit of a clean up, but meets GNG and very hard to argue he is non-notable. WP:NRU is rubbish, and should be used with caution. Have to AGF with the offline source, but am happy to keep. -- Shudde ^talk 11:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He captained a first-class rugby team in New Zealand; the notification rules for rugby don't really cover the amateur era, but Auckland is a long-lasting and very successful team so it's a significant role in one of the world's leading rugby nations. Sources will be offline in New Zealand papers and magazines. If kept, article should be renamed to Pat Sheahan (rugby player). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arden McCarthy

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

Not notable. Yet to play a senior NRL or international game [36]. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per WP:NOTNOW, if the sportsman ever becomes notable recreation is welcome, wikipedia is not a place for every single academic person or sportsman which are not widely covered. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I jumped the gun and expanded this article when he was named in the Samoan 2013 Rugby League World Cup squad, which would have seen him become notable. However he was removed from the squad and did not play a match at the tournament. Clearly fails WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has represented Samoa they are full members of the RLIF..Youndbuckerz (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rugbyleaguesamoa.com/home/137-samoa-smash-usa

Their opponents for that game, USA, are not RLIF or RLEF members so the game does not count as a competitive international match for WP:RLN. And don't remove AfD notices from articles while they are still at AfD. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International sporteman; always notable if representing country in any sports code.Rick570 (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't, and shouldn't, be an article on every sports man or women who have represented every country in every code. (For instance [37]). In this case (rugby league) the notability guidelines state they are notable if play at a World Cup or in a match between two nations that are full members of the RLIF. Mattlore (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is in the Samoa national team at the Rugby League World Cup for goodness sake. He is an international representative. Notable without a doubt. Rick570 (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is not in the Samoa national team at the Rugby League World Cup [38]. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is according to the BBC source actually in the article. Spinning Spark 16:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. fails WP:RLN. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional keep~~ unless it is determined that he is not/ has not been in the national team Rugby League World Cup squad. Spinning Spark 16:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the official Samoan Rugby League web site, he is indeed on the Rugby World Cup team for Samoa http://rugbyleaguesamoa.com/rls-teams/toa-samoa/165-world-cup-team-announced Mattlore has better references, which show this should have been Delete --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He was named in the original squad named by Samoa. Samoa had some...odd..problems when they named there squad, including originally naming 26 players in there 24 man squad. While I have not found an official article or release about him being dropped from the squad, he was not in the final squad that actually played in the tournament. Samoa's tournament is over and he definitely did not play a match. Here is the squad from the official RLWC site [39] and another link to a list of players who played in the tournament [40]. Mattlore (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ He was selected for the Samoa National Rugby League Team for the 2013 Rugby League World Cup tournament. He is therefore notable.Rick570 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your keep, you cannot !vote twice. Spinning Spark 09:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails WP:RLN as he has not played for/against appropriate teams. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:22, 26 November 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 visual culture. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visual History

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

This appears to be a very poorly translated version of an article on the French Wikipedia here: [41]. As it now stands, it is almost incomprehensible in English, suggestive of a machine translation, unencyclopedic and of little use to an English Wikipedia reader Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use WP:TNT? Google searches for whatever the French (and German) articles are talking about are heavily screened in English by the apparent fact that a "visual history" is used to describe a popular history book in which historical images or illustrations predominate and in which the text may be largely confined to captions. I personally would be hard-pressed to find scholarly description of this, however. It's conversely unclear whether the French topic actually has the corresponding name in English; the lack of JSTOR hits suggests that it is named something else. I'm inclined to delete the existing text entirely but I'm not sure about replacing it with something else. Mangoe (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If the subject is notable in French, it should be notable in English. However, I would not beable tio sort it out. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...which would be fine, if it were actually called this in English. I have yet to find any evidence that it is. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google translate seems to think that the French version is about the history of the image or of all things visual, in which case maybe some of this content could be stuffed into a History section of the Image article. If it could be made coherent. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following argument appears to be a keep from the article's talk page Visual History: "I have spoken with other students. Visual History is a very serious article. The main question is the translation. It would be a real mistake to delete this article: imagine, if wikipedia was used in the 1930s, you had deleted the Ecole des Annales article, just because the translation was bad? English speaking users of our Free Encyclopedia must really know about these news researches for a global history of images. So, we feel in fact that the main question is, with your help, to improve the translation in English. malexart87.231.94.89 (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)" — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visual History (or Histiconologia) is in fact the right name. This is the new global History of all visual matters made by humankind from Prehistory. That means objects, arts, images, architectures, landscapes... You cannot call it History of Images or History of Arts. So, you really should keep the name. It is useful in fact and right. argemedia87.231.94.89 (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe the author distinguishes between the history of images and human history as evidenced by art; perhaps he intends the latter to be the article's subject. While this may be a legitimate historical concept, the given sources do not support this idea, instead suggesting original synthesis. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Visual culture which is the English top-level article for visual studies. Create a subsection translated from the German version which is succinct.[42] The French article is hopelessly long and detailed without adequate secondary sourcing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Green Cardamom's logical suggestion above. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Visual History but change the name: History of Visual Culture

I do agree with argemedia: "I am really sorry to say that to delete or to redirect Visual History would be a historical mistake for our common Encyclopedia. Visual History is a new science. Of course, it deals with Visual Culture, but it is a History of this Visual Culture, as you have a general History, a History of Art or Arts, a History of Medias, a History of Images. This History of Visual Culture is a global history of all visual matters : images, objects, arts, architectures, landscapes... It has been founded with the World Dictionnary of Images (in fact, not only images, but all aspects of visual culture from Prehistory) written by 475 authors from all over the World (publisher : Nouveau Monde). Nevertheless there is a problem with the name in English, because Visual History could mean also a way to show History through various images. So, my suggestion is to keep it but to change the name in order to make it more clear for everybody in English: History of Visual Culture. I may do this if everybody agree. argemedia" malexartMalexart (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted your comment so that it doesn't affect the AfD template. Also, please don't take any action regarding the article until the AfD is resolved. In cases like this, an administrator must determine consensus and then close the AfD. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, many thanks. malexartMalexart (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as suggested, but do not keep in the current unreadable state. No objection to a later competent and sourced recreation. Sandstein 06:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bath Fitter

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

Borderline notability at best. Promotional content, trivial awards DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):the topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 23:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:50, 24 November 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) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pearson (entrepreneur)

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

Not notable, fails WP:BIO and clearly PR trash Phatwa (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query - clearly badly written but are you suggesting that the subject is not notable even with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? Stalwart111 02:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing then? Stalwart111 01:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO, MyVoucherCodes is according to Alexa the 8th largest voucher code site in the UK, doesn't warrant an article simply because the owner has a PR firm working for him. 86.151.48.68 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — 86.151.48.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak Delete maybe merge with Vouchers article as addendum. 94.0.231.65 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — 94.0.231.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

delete -- I do not think a company with 100 employees is likely to be notable, and that is all he has done. If there is a company page, we might have merged something there. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it doesn't really matter whether the company has started has 10 employees, 100 employees or 100,000 employees. What matters is whether there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. That the article needs some editing to ensure compliance with WP:MOS and to prevent it from being/becoming a PR hack job is a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problem. The immediate attention from two SPA IPs (one of which seems to be connected to the nominator here) suggests this nomination is based on something other than trying to improve the project. Stalwart111 01:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, which is the relevant guideline. Statistics such as number of employees or current popularity of a website would only indicate whether a business is likely to be notable, not determine whether it is or not, and this article isn't even about the business. Peter James (talk) 10:18, 24 November 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 Reader Rabbit. Soft Delete as an uncontested PROD, then recreate + redirect to series article as a valid search term at my discretion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Math Journey For Grades 1-3

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

Notability not established since July. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:49, 24 November 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 programs broadcast by Fuse. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ICP theater

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

Article about a non-notable television program. I am unable to find reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail. - Mr X 21:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Fuse Pretty much a short-run MST3K clone without any notability outside of ICP fans. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It is unsourced, and we have 2-0 delete, relisting did not result in any new opinions. However, the participation is at the low end, and if someone wants to take the article to work on it, feel free to ask me or any other administrator to userfy it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYLZ

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

Unsourced article about a seemingly non-notable radio station. Fails WP:BROADCAST - Mr X 21:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable pirate station. Nate • (chatter) 23:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:48, 24 November 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. Lots of single purpose accounts it seems here. Deleting. Any concerns with the deletion of this article, please take it to deletion review, thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jedediah Bila

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

The only accomplishment here which might be notable is her book, but it was apparently self published and is in only 19 libraries.. The Washington Times "article" is actually a press release (it says at the bottom: . Contributors are responsible for this content, which is not edited by The Washington Times) -- and even so, all they can say is that she is "gaining a reputation"., which translates for WP as not yet notable.

The article is being actively maintained by a contributor who has worked on this article and nothing else. It was accepted from AfC , & I've notified the ed. who accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources. The article is a variation of her website bio page,[43] arguably copyvio. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the editor who accepted this at AfC. There are a few Google News hits, which may be what induced me to accept it, but on closer inspection I don't see any in-depth coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think her extensive television appearances make her notable. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. But she has been interviewed numerous times and what's in the article is verifiable. She's appearing in fairly prominent shows on popular channels, writing columns, and cohosting. She's written a book, even if it was self-published. An argument for toosoon can certainly be made, but I think it's probably in the interest of our readers to provide coverage of this biographical subject and I think it's reasonable to assume that her notability will only increase over time (she was hired by Fox as a contributor in 2013). So I'm going with Keep. I think what coverage she has received, a lot of it not in the mainstream, is cumulatively sufficient to establish notability. For example on November 19, 2013 she made Mediaite's list of 50 sexiest in TV News. "Fox News contributor Jedediah Bila pops up across that network to share her opinion from time to time, but she really comes alive on the 3am broadcast of Red Eye, where her chemistry with host Greg Gutfeld is palpable." She's no Walter Cronkite, but seems to be making some waves and getting noticed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry if Im not doing everything correctly in writing this. Wikipedia is def an "inside group of ppl" who talk about rules constantly that I know nothing about being that I haven't spent much time here. I just wanted to add my 2 cents. I was reading one of my favorite websites "Twitchy" (which is an extremely popular high trafficked website), and one of the "articles" was about Jedidiah Bila. I was thinking to myself "Who?" The article spoke of her as though she was a household name, so I was curious to see who she was. So I searched Google and found her bio here on Wikipedia. I quickly read it and was satisfied. Information filed. So I happened to see it was up for deletion? I think that would be a bad idea, esp when there are obviously people looking her up to find out about her. Just my input. thanks Sedated Princess (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (comment moved here from article talk page)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think one of the most charming aspects of Wikipedia is that articles can come from amateurs. All articles need to have a square one. Readers should be more concerned about the veracity of the information rather than style. The information in the article can be verified relatively easily if it hasn't been done already. Since Ms. Bila is a significant contributor to a political viewpoint, deleting her article can be seen as an attack on that viewpoint. That is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. An editor could ask the public for a review of her book as well as comments on its reception. This will expand the article and end the process for deletion. One reason for the paucity of information of the article is the fact that she is young and is relatively new to punditry. She has a promising future and Wikipedia should offer her a place for her career to be summarized. The current article sets a reasonable foundation for future contributions.MrSottobanco (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)MrSottobanco[reply]

Keep - Notible author, media personality Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. I wanted to know who she is, the information was available here. Is there any reason other than that to keep an article? (posted by Gamecock96 on talk page of deletion discussion)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unquestionably, she is a notable person with an impressive list of accomplishments, particularly in view of her age. If the criterion is to be degree of notability, she is much more of a household name than many other subjects of Wikipedia articles which are not being proposed for deletion. Is it possible that the initiative to delete this article is coming from those with an ideological ax to grind? MAGoldberg (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it's possible that ideology may influence deletion nominations... but I'm sure that's not the case here. It's also not particularly likely that others (particularly Cerebellum, who approved the initial article) would just happen to agree solely on that basis. Discussions (and nominations) are centred around notability requirements. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Giannoni

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

I admit this version of the sport is unfamiliar to me, but unless every professional athlete is automatically notable (in which case so should be every person who earns a living as a professional at anything) , I don't see anything making for notability here. The article was written after being rejected at AfC, and we need some programatic way of detecting these). I don't think any of the sources listed as external links are sources for notability .

I believe we have in the past been fairly skeptical about athletes claiming notability as the national representative of very small nations (in this case, pretty much the extreme that way, San Marino. ). I also notice the 7th item in "competitions" is worded in the first person, " 2010 I became part of the European circuit" .

I notice the main article for the sport (or version of the sport) , Vert skating, says in the text there are fewer than 15 professionals, but goes on to list 44 professionals notable enough for articles in WP. And I call attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vert skating--I've notified the main particpants there. I leave further discussion here to people who actually know the topic.--all I feel competent to do is identify a possible problem. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After taking a look at the top 120 or so responses on a google search of "Davide Giannoni" + "biography," I've got nothin'... Carrite (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and I preface my comment by saying that my area of expertise (if you could call it that at all) is skateboarding (see WP:SKATE) rather than inline skating. To address the 15/44 issue - I imagine the 15 would be those who are professional and compete in Vert skating and nothing else in the inline skating sphere. Like skateboarding, you can specialise in one particular event - vert skateboarding, street skateboarding, slalom skateboarding, etc - or you can compete in various disciplines. There are probably 44 inline skaters who regularly compete in vert competitions among other things but only a handful who do so and nothing else. With regard to skateboarding (though we are working on some formal guidelines) the informal consensus has generally been that a skater has to either meet WP:GNG or have won some fairly notable international competitions to be considered notable (in the same vein as WP:NOLYMPICS. Winning several X Games medals, for example, or cumulative points competitions at an international invitational (like the Maloof Money Cup) would probably be sufficient. The competitions won by the subject would not be in that category and the links to the ones in the infobox go back to vert skating and they likely wouldn't be notable enough for their own articles. Winning a single event one year at [King of Diga is not really a big deal. Stalwart111 04:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why do I have to explain this over and over like if its rocket science.. let me give you an example here, Pelé the greatest footballer in history aka (Edson Arantes do Nascimento) doesn't play football anymore, so he's not a professional anymore! does that mean we have to remove him from wikipedia? vert skating was included in the first xgames in 1995 and many athletes won medals, yes much more than those listen in the vert skating page, I just cant find sources and you ask why currently 14? XK8ER (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also skaters like Moises Moisty Abreu, Manuel Billiris, Chris Edwards (skater), Rene Hulgreen, Matt Salerno, Shane Yost are legends in this sport, and they're not competing anymore. the only xgames for vert skating right now is held in China at the Shanghai XGames after it was removed from the ESPN in the US due to issues with TV ratings. so not only they get all of their competitions terminated but also their careers and only way of making money. Now also removed from wikipedia nice! XK8ER (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? We're not talking about vert skating, we're talking about the BLP of a vert skater. Winning X Games medals in 1995 would be just as significant as winning them in 2012 per WP:NOTTEMP. Medals won in Shanghai would be as valid as medals won in LA or Miami or Sydney. Retired pro-skaters are just as likely to be considered notable as current skaters if they won major competitions or received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That's the issue here - there is a comprehensive list of event wins/places in the subject's article and none seem significant. He also doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG (and is a current pro, from what I can tell, not a retired pro from 1995). Nobody is suggesting we delete Shane Yost (who won 21 X Games medals and was formally and formerly ranked number 1 in the world), that would be silly. Any comment on this person in particular? Stalwart111 20:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: he is not from the US so I doubt you will find him on google.com but you can use google.it like https://www.google.it/#q=Davide+Giannoni+pattinatore

@Stalwart111: see some articles here:

http://www.sanmarinonotizie.com/?p=58361

http://www.sanmarinonotizie.com/?p=53528

http://www.newsrimini.it/news/2013/giugno/11/san_marino/pattinaggio_acrobatico._davide_giannoni_9a__ai_kia_world_extreme_games.html

http://www.rimini.com/news/pattinaggio--davide-giannoni-a-nantes-per-il-gladiator-contest.php

XK8ER (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with those sources is that they are all centred around a tiny geographic location - San Marino and Rimini - and don't really substantiate notability outside of the confines of his home town. Local press about a local person competing in (but not necessarily winning) international competitions probably wouldn't be considered "significant coverage". Others may disagree but that's my understanding of existing consensus. Anything like that from wider national Italian press or international news? Stalwart111 00:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll find something useful if you put enough time to research, good luck! XK8ER (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was about to close this as delete, but wanted to check whether the athlete indeed fails WP:N (WP:NSPORTS does not say anything about Xtreme sports, from what I can see, and WP:N applies). I searched in Italian and was able to found a couple of things where he is described in some detail: Italian rollerblading magazine, Romagna Gazzette - the provincial newspaper, not just Rimini, and a couple of local Rimini articles were reprinted by national media, such as here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Ymblanter. I was about to close this as no consensus but found a couple more refs.[44][45] -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 11:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No policy-based rationale for retention. L Faraone 01:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tori index

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

Non-notable index. Article has one reference, in which this index was proposed. According to Google Scholar, this article has been cited exactly once. Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found another source, [46] but two sources does not notability make. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riq index and discussion of both of these articles at Talk:h-index. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a valuable piece of information about one of the few indices, if any, designed to account for the bias of the self-citations. The fact that NASA ADS has implemented it is a clear manifestation of its relevance. And also a blog by the American Physical Society is enough. 40BOG40 (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:40BOG40. On the Internet I found researchers posting their tori and riq in their online curriculum. I have also to say that in Wikipedia I have seen a host of other indices which does not deal with self-citations. Keeping it would be a good sign to the community that one take seriously the impact of autociting. Thus, Keep. Danguard00 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is absolutely not the only index that corrects for self-citations: the Web of Science presents citation rates (including the h-index) both corrected and uncorrected for self-citations. Not that this matters much: what we find important or not really is not of importance here. That the index itself has been cited just once in the scientific literature says more about the fact that this has not (yet?) found any acceptance in the community. --Randykitty (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to keep it. The indices by Web of Science are not freely available and have not been implemented by NASA ADS. For me, the fact that there is only one citation to the article is not significant. There are other means to make an idea of the diffusion and influence of an idea, etc. For example, also the number of readers, downloads, etc. as those provided by NASA ADS and PLOSone itself. And, to me, the goal of tori and riq is of the highest relevance. I suggest the qualified contributors of Wikipedia to systematically add tori and riq to the articles of scientists, when available. Referee23 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, like the other comments above, this is not a policy-based argument (see WP:ILIKEIT). I am quite certain that WP will not start including numbers of downloads and all kinds of other indexes. At this point, the only widely-accepted measures are the impact factor, number of citations for a paper, and the h-index. (BTW, unless a researcher publishes lots of papers and cites all of his previously-published ones in all of them, these figures are hard to game by self-citations). The tori and riq indexes will most certainly not be added to any biographies until they are more widely accepted in the field than the ones I just mentioned (and even mentioning someone's h-index is not uncontroversial here). That NASA ADS has implemented them is nice, but that database covers just a very small part of academia and leaves out many other fields (life sciences, social sciences, humanities, etc.). In short, up till now not a single one of the "keep" !votes is policy based, so unless you come up with a better argument, they will likely be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main claim to notability for this bibliometric is usage by the major database Astrophysics Data System. This database is undoubtedly a reliable secondary source, but at present, it is the only one. I've been unable to find a second source; an APS blog doesn't count as reliable for me. This may fall under WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for notability to develop. This doesn't preclude the development of a bibliometrics section in the Astrophysics Data System article to discuss this and other metrics used at ADS. No prejudice to recreation when multiple in depth reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have struck the votes of User:Referee23 and User:40BOG40 as they are blocked as sockpuppets of User:Danguard00. L Faraone 01:16, 25 November 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 GNU. Sandstein 06:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Enterprise

AfDs for this article:

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

The articles cannot be attributed to reliable sources: The website is unreachable, the source code repository is empty, there are some old packages giving clear evidence that the project never supported the features mentioned in the article or various comparison pages (Comparison of accounting software, Comparison of CRM systems, List of ERP software packages). The artice fails to meet the relevant notability guideline: The mailing list had no announcement since 2009.--Huskytreiber (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End rationale, begin discussion.

Comment - I fixed up the nomination for Huskytreiber (talk · contribs), although it still looks quite unorthodox; I won't be watching so ping me if needed. Ansh6 6 6 20:01, 31 October 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 October 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found mentions on Heise.de and Salon.com which may be enough to establish notability. Notability isn't temporary, but this project does indeed seem dead. So, maybe it should simply be merged into the main GNU article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY and every one is a dead link. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Likely best option here given it won't meet N and while notability is not temporary, it is the questioned implimentation and lack of verifiability that prompts merge. And for dead links, try Archive.org. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People, the links above to find sources are there for a reason. The topic meets WP:GNG, per the sources found by NinjaRobotPirate and because covered in a plethora of other sources. See short but meaningful mentions here and here, a whole academic paper on the GNU Enterprise development and another where included in a comparative analysis. Also let us remember that notability is not temporary and that the current activity status of the software has nothing to do with its notability. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've just mixed up WP:RS with WP:V. I would indeed consider your mentioned sources as reliable, but they nevertheless don't make the article verifiable, because they don't confirm any of the statements of the article. The academic paper deals with the software development model, something not even mentioned in the article. Can you find any reliable source that confirms that GNUe implements a full Enterprise Resource Planning system (as said in the article), or the support of any of the packages mentioned in the article? Can you find any reliable source for the features mentioned in Comparison of accounting software? It's open source software. Can you point me to the source code of the database layer that handles all the databases mentioned in Comparison of CRM systems? Can you find one single screen shot of the features mentioned in Comparison of accounting software? The article on Heise.de even contradicts the majority of the statements in the article by saying" "GNU Enterprise to date is only a (for the practicable use hardly usable) development environment for business applications" (translated from German). And the funniest thing is the citation for "Development status: Active", which is the projects website, unreachable for years. I do not care if the article is delete or not, but you should know, that I have the strong feeling that most of the assertions in the article do not represent facts but only the ambitious dream of one person which never came true (Vaporware). And that should not be part of a Wikipedia article. Huskytreiber (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant for deletion is that the topic is notable -and it clearly is. That the article contains original research and/or unverifiable statements is true but it is something that can be dealt with editing, not deletion, and as such our deletion policy asks us to not delete, explicitly. AfD is not for cleanup. I may agree with your assessment of issues within the article, but this just means it can be stubified and then rewritten following the sources. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Per the sources found by Cyclopia. Notability is not temporary, and AFD is not for article improvement. If it's covered in WP:RS, then it passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livitup (talk • contribs)
Merge to GNU. There is every sign that this is a dead project that never delivered anything substantial. The sources found by NinjaRobotPirate are both passing mentions, not enough to meet WP:N. The Salon article, especially, only mentions in passing that some other piece of software it is discussing may one day form part of GNUe. The sources found be Cyclopia are better but still mostly passing mentions. Of the two substantial published papers, the Elliot and Scacchi paper is concerned with the culture of developers and is using GNUe as a case study. It is not really telling us anything about GNUe itself, only verifying that there was active development in 2003. The Erbizzoni et al. paper is behind a paywall and I would be very reluctant to accept for notability on the basis of what it says in the abstract (but would take on good faith comments from anyone who has read it). Spinning Spark 13:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GNU. There is a clear lack of "Significant coverage" according to WP:GNG of the project itself or its outcomes. Notability may not be temporary, but it is neither for things that never really got going enough to rise into notability. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks meaningful coverage to establish notability. With the exception of the Erbizzoni, et al, article which I cannot review, all mentions are either in passing, only noting that the software exists, or otherwise not about GNU Enterprise (such as using it as a case study for something else.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GNU. There are reliable sources but the coverage is not of sufficient depth to justify a separate article. - Mr X 01:28, 25 November 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.

^ Rioux, JG; Ritenbaugh, C (May–June 2013). "Narrative review of yoga intervention clinical trials including weight-related outcomes". Alternative Therapy, Health, and Medicine. PMID 23709458. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^ "NCES data for Rossford Public Library". Retrieved 2008-10-15.
^ "Library Technology Guides: Rossford Public Library". Retrieved 2008-10-15.

[1] Rioux, JG; Ritenbaugh, C (May–June 2013). "Narrative review of yoga intervention clinical trials including weight-related outcomes". Alternative Therapy, Health, and Medicine. PMID 23709458. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

[2] "NCES data for Rossford Public Library". Retrieved 2008-10-15.

[3] "Library Technology Guides: Rossford Public Library". Retrieved 2008-10-15.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMX Resources}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPG Resources Ltd}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOVA-MBA Association}}