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 03:08, 1 December 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The result was KEEP - Withdrawn by nominator. - Mr X 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seacon Bangkae

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

Inadequately sourced article about a shopping plaza in Bangkok. No evidence of notability. Unless some reliable sources can be found to establish notability, this subject fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 23:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Sources have been located. - Mr X 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its lengthy construction seems to have been covered by multiple national newspapers.[1][2][3][4] --Paul_012 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding those. I think it sufficient for notability. - Mr X 18:59, 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 keep. Per WP:AUTHOR, especially Green Cardamom's links. Deletion is not a fix for WP:COI. The genesis of an article (outside of copyright violations) is generally not a reason for deletion. Sancho 08:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan RoAne

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

Now that it has been effectively confirmed that the author of this page was paid to create it, I am going to once again nom for deletion. As I stated in the previous AfD, I think that the article is still fairly promotional (not least because of the second para of background) and the author/speaker is not notable. It is important to note that these are not research books, but mass market ones (hence the library figures noted in the previous AfD are not, in my opinion, high enough to give automatic notability). I will notify all who voted at the previous AfD, and recommend that any new commenters also read the old AfD. This is how the article looked when this AfD was proposed. Benboy00 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only plausible reason to keep found in the first AfD was library holdings. However, self-improvement books are a dime-a-dozen and this one does not sand out from the pack, even from its library holdings, as suggested by a participant in the previous AfD. There are insufficient full-length reviews devoted to the books or the author to pass WP:Author, only some passing mentions. Incidentally, the photo in the article does not resemble the photos in some of the publicity material sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- I thank the nominator for informing everyone who participated in the last discussion, even those of us with conflicting opinions, but I don't feel that the COI editing is sufficient of a revelation to change my views from just two months ago (I think that even for a no consensus two months is too short of a time between AfDs). The library holdings are extremely strong (approximately 2,500 copies for one book and about 1,000 for the other if I recall correctly) regardless of academic or non-academic books. The reviews give reliable sources on which to edit the article and seem sufficiently notable to pass GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews. Sources below are from commercial databases and can be verified through WP:REX. This is not a complete list of sources but seemed enough. More available on request (ProQuest has many more yet to be listed).

Per WP:GNG significant coverage in multiple reliable sources:

"6 Secrets to Successful Schmoozing", New Haven Register (April 11 2010). Abstract: Information about Susan RoAne's book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
"Let's talk about networking: a conversation with best-selling author Susan RoAne and student lawyer contributing editor Donna Gerson." Student Lawyer Oct. 2003: 26+. (Database: Academic OneFile)
Steven N. Czetli. "NETWORKING EVENTS IDEAL PLACE TO MARKET YOURSELF", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA) (March 13 2003). Abstract: Review of speech by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Carrie Stetler. "How to succeed in business: Make some small talk - One on one". Star-Ledger. (February 4 2001). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
Barbara Hoffman. "SCHMOOZE OR LOSE; THE MAVEN OF MINGLING WRITES HOW TO NIX SHYNESS AND 'WORK A ROOM'". New York Post (NY) (February 15, 2001). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
Deirdre Donahue. "'Work a Room' with charm, wit". USA Today (March 9 2001). Abstract: Review of audiobook version of How to Work a Room. (Database: NewsBank)
Janet Holman Parmer. "THE ART OF SCHMOOZING AUTHOR UNVEILS MINGLING SECRETS", Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA) (September 15, 1999). Abstract: Review of speech by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Terry McManus. "Author says networking anxieties can be overcome." Crain's Detroit Business. 10/19/98, Vol. 14 Issue 42, pE-11. Abstract: Offers tips on how to overcome anxieties about meeting new people and learning how to work a room. Importance of listening; Need to find a common thread to get things rolling in the right direction; Use of a seven-second self-introduction. (Database: EBSCO)
G. Patrick Pawling. "NETWORKING ALIVE AND WELL, AND HELPING TO SELL CARS", Press of Atlantic City(NJ) (November 15 1995). Abstract: Review of talk given by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Joyce Gabriel. "Career Women Must Avoid Being `Ladies'", Tulsa World (January 23 1994). Abstract: Review of book and advice by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Laurie Aucoin, "BEFORE YOU CAN NETWORK, YOU MUST MINGLE. LEARN HOW TO WORK ROOM", Knight-Ridder News Service. Carried in The Wichita Eagle (KS; December 6 1993), The Dallas Morning News (November 15 1993); The Charlotte Observer(NC; November 15, 1993); Tulsa World (December 26 1993. Abstract: Information about book How to Work a Room by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Milrose B. Basco. "Getting down to business at parties, San Diego Union-Tribune (January 11, 1993). Abstract: Information about book How to Work a Room by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Loraine O'Connell. "WOMEN ARE NETWORKING LEADERS" The Orlando Sentinel (August 12, 1992). Abstract: Susan RoAne, author of the 1988 guide to networking, How To Work a Room, ties the formalization of networking to the rise of the women's movement. (Database: NewsBank)
SHARON MOSLEY. "10 STEPS TO SAVVY SOCIALIZING". USA TODAY (July 5 1990). Abstract: Provides 10 step advice how to mingle at parties based on Susan RoAne's How to Work a Room. (Database: NewsBank)
"How to Work A Convention." Women in Business. Sep/Oct 90, Vol. 42 Issue 5, p7-7. Abstract: Features the book "How to Work a Room," by Susan RoAne. Tips offered by the book on how readers can meet association members and prospective clients at the 1990 ABWA National Convention in Dallas, Texas; Tips on social and business networking; Publisher information. (Database: EBSCO)
Debroah Fineblum Raub. "On a rain-drenched Saturday night about 100 people sat in rows of metal folding chairs and listened to author Susan RoAne talk. She'd come all the way from San Francisco to teach them the art of networking. And they loved her.", USA Today (December 13, 1988). Abstract: Reviews Susan RoAne's speech. (Database: NewsBank)
Craig Wilson. "How to work a party; An expert's advice for successful mingling; Stick out your hand and say `hi'" USA Today (November 7, 1988). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
SHIRLEY ARMBRUSTER. "'WORK THE CROWD', BUSINESSWOMEN TOLD". Fresno Bee (January 13 1988). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
Alice Kahn. "Networking Your Way To Obscurity", San Francisco Chronicle (December 3 1986). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne and message. (Database: NewsBank)

Per WP:AUTHOR multiple book reviews:

Bonnie A. Osif. "Communication". Library Leadership & Management. 2010, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p38-44. Abstract: The article reviews several books on human communication including "Voice of Authority" by Dianna Daniels Booher, "Face to Face" by Susan Roane, and "Managing Difficult Interactions" by the Harvard Business Press. (Database: EBSCO)
Publishers Weekly. 8/4/2008, Vol. 255 Issue 31, p54-54. Abstract: The article reviews the book "Face to Face: How to Reclaim the Personal Touch in a Digital World," by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
"Be the Lucky One." Office Pro. April 2005, Vol. 65 Issue 3, p32-32. Abstract: Reviews the book "How to Create Your Own Luck: The 'You Never Know' Approach to Networking, Taking Chances, and Opening Yourself to Opportunity," by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
"HOW TO CREATE YOUR OWN LUCK: The "You Never Know" Approach to Networking, Taking Chances, and Opening Yourself to Opportunity (Book)." Publishers Weekly. 8/23/2004, Vol. 251 Issue 34. Abstract: Reviews the book "How to Create Your Own Luck: The "You Never Know" Approach to Networking, Taking Chances, and Opening Yourself to Opportunity," by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
"ROANE'S RULES (Book)." Publishers Weekly. 5/5/2003, Vol. 250 Issue 18. Abstract: Reviews the non-fiction audiobook 'RoAne's Rules: How to Make the Right Impression,' by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
Loren G. Edelstein. "For the bookshelf." Meetings & Conventions. Nov97 Part 1 of 2, Vol. 32 Issue 12. Abstract: Reviews the books `What Do I Say Next?' by Susan RoAne and `Winning Communications Strategies,' by Jeffrey Kagan. (Database: EBSCO)
Mary Whaley. "Adult books: Nonfiction." Booklist. Aug97, Vol. 93 Issue 22. Abstract: Reviews the book, `What Do I Say Next?: Talking Your Way to Business and Social Success,' by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
Mark Guyer. "Audio reviews". Library Journal. 8/1/1995, Vol. 120 Issue 13, p135. Abstract: Reviews the sound recording `The Secrets of Savvy Networking,' by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
Judy Quinn. "Book reviews: Social sciences." Library Journal. 4/1/1993, Vol. 118 Issue 6. Abstract: Reviews the book `The Secrets of Savvy Networking: How To Make the Best Connections--for Business and Personal Success,' by Susan Roane. (Database: EBSCO)
Debbie Gumulauski. "How to Work a Room." Library Journal. 9/15/1991, Vol. 116 Issue 15. Abstract: Reviews the audiobook "How to Work a Room," by Susan RoAne.(Database: EBSCO)
David Brooks. "How-To Books for Sharks and Dogs". Wall Street Journal (November 8 1988). Abstract: Book reviews of Susan RoAne's "How to Work a Room: A Guide to Successfully Managing the Mingling" and Job Michael Evans's "The Evans Guide for Civilized City Canines" (Database: ProQuest)

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I can get at of these seem to be passing mentions and do not contain the multiple independent periodical articles or reviews required by WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I've re-arranged the sources so it is clear which are applicable to WP:AUTHOR and which to WP:GNG. If you're going to disparage a source, please identify which one(s). Green Cardamom (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Green Cardamom's sources look to be very useful but I neither have the time nor facilities to evaluate them at the moment. If they hadn't been posted here, I'd be !voting delete again, on the basis of the article being essentially unimproved (in terms of references) since the 2 months since the first nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had !voted weak keep last time, but it seems the closer one looks, the more one finds that almost everything associated with this case is tinged with WP:PROMOTION, for example most of the references in the article are PR firm blogs, adverts for talks, or trivial mentions. Cardamom has again done enormous legwork, but lots of these sources seem to be the subject promoting her book(s). Publisher's Weekly comes up periodically to support notability arguments on the basis of book reviews, but that is a trade publication which reviews probably around 10K books per year, so these reviews are strictly routine. In these cases, it's difficult to cut through the promotional chaff to get to the objective information. Book holdings are objective, but again RoAne's are not very spectacular, considering she writes in the "self help" genre, perhaps the most popular sector in mass market books. RoAne may be notable, but we can't really have a reasonable debate with the current article and its history – maybe best to start over. Agricola44 (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for confirming you did not verify the sources I listed above. Knowing how contentious this AfD has been, I was careful about choosing sources and read every one. They are reliable, written by journalists, editorial control, significant coverage (almost every one is devoted to RoAne). They are not: advertisements, press releases, announcements or other types of event or product promotion, or full-length interviews (some contain extended quotes). If wish to contest, suggest reading the articles and list which ones you disagree with. Also, you voted Delete, but then recommended TNT ("start over"), these are conflicting. TNT requires Keep, can't TNT a non-existent article :) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just delete, and then wait to see if someone who isn't being paid to do it creates an article on the person. As I understand it, this is the normal and preferred route. Also, where does TNT say it requires a keep vote? Benboy00 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "normal" to delete notable articles on COI grounds. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I am not proposing deletion simply because of COI. I was just providing one possible course of action to help determine notability. Benboy00 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT not only doesn't require a Keep vote, it specifically reflects deletion. "With articles, this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value, when people tend to be more inclined to fill red links."--Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting content is not the same as deleting an article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read both sentences I quoted? (The "red links" it refers to is what Wikipedia displays when a Wikilink points to an article that does not exist; in context, a deleted article.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TNT is an essay not a guideline or rule. My understanding of TNT was that it retained the article history, but since it appears whoever wrote that essay wanted it to mean also delete article history as well, I will no longer be quoting TNT in AfD since it implies a Delete vote. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my point is that a lot of these are promotional: They don't really say much if anything about RoAne. Rather, they are RoAne on RoAne and her work. The Sentinel article for example, is basically quotes with mention of her book. I don't think anyone is questioning that it was written by a "journalist". The problem is that these may not really be independent of RoAne. She is in the promotion business. Perhaps some of these were arranged, which happens frequently (as it evidently did with the very article we are debating) The bottom line is that the egregiousness of WP:PROMOTION make it very difficult for a disinterested party to give an objective assessment. TNT is procedural either way...no need to "keep" for that. Agricola44 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Actually she is in the self-help business, she write self-help books on how to network and be socially outgoing, her main target audience is women, she is a feminist writer, sort of a boot camp coach to get women to be more assertive and independent. Perhaps more relevant to a slightly older generation than is participating here. As for the Sentinel article, that's an acceptable article for determining notability. We would expect such a source to contain quotes from RoAne and her book. If it didn't, there would be complaints of trivial coverage. Can't have it both ways. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to quibble over the semantics of whether self-help-to-promote-yourself is being in the "promotion business". Let me be blunt: An article like the one in the Sentinel would be helpful under normal circumstances. However, the egregious WP:PROMOTION that we now know to exist in this particular case (including the paid-for article we are debating) raises real and serious doubts about whether these "interview"-type sources are, in fact, independent of RoAne. We now know that Ms. RoAne (or a party acting on her behalf) goes to great lengths for the purposes of promotion. Those articles may just be more instances of the same. It has "poisoned the well", essentially placing the burden of proof on those sources to somehow demonstrate an independence that we would automatically accept under regular circumstances. You and I typically have long threads of argumentation that usually end with me retiring from the debate. I'm going to try to do that now. Best! Agricola44 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Might suggest your zeal against paid editors is clouding judgement of the sources. People hire paid editors for all sorts of reasons, not all bad reasons, nor is it against the rules, in particular when someone has extensive media coverage over 25 years as a popular author and speaker. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All kinds of reasons, not all bad – agree! – but not in this case. Please see my comments below on what's at stake for Ms. RoAne and her $10,000-per-appearance speaking business. Might I suggest that we not allow WP to function as a shill for this person, in violation of WP:PROMOTION? I repeat that what it comes down to is this: can you demonstrate that these sources are independent of Ms. RoAne? It seems the answer is no. Agricola44 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

PROMOTION is a content rule not topic level. Articles can exist if they are notable, period. That you might believe the article's existence is promotion is a personal bias. Marketing people who charge 10,000 for speaking engagements can be notable. We don't throw out a 25-year career of persistent and wide media coverage just because she is a marketing person. You provided no evidence that these sources are unreliable other than the fact that she is a marketing person. We don't bias against people based on what they do for a living. Please stop attacking this person based on her career choice - there's nothing "insidious" about being a marketing person or charging for speaking engagements. The sources are reliable, persistent over a 25-year career, significant coverage, in a wide diversity of outlets. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You provide no evidence that the sources are independent and I think the circumstances put the burden of proof there. We're at an impasse. Best! Agricola44 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Given the mainstream status of these sources (USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly etc) the burden is really on you to show they are unreliable. We use these sources throughout Wikipedia. We generally rely on these sources implicitly unless there is direct evidence otherwise. The only evidence you have provided is a personal dislike and distrust of marketing people. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's that she managed to get a paid promo article into WP under everyone's noses, including yours. These sorts of articles threaten the entire NPOV reputation of WP. You're just not seeing the larger picture in that. best, Agricola44 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Things are not so bad, if anything Wikipedia has an equally greater problem of deleting notable content that shouldn't be deleted. When I see Speedied and AFC archives I cringe since parts of it are salvageable and notable. That's a big driver of paid editors, the over zelous deletions force people to get outside help. I understand what you're saying but I am not a paid editor and I think this topic is notable under our guidelines. The ends of punishing paid editors doesn't justify the means of deleting notable topics. In fact doing so creates unexpected consequences. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had argued for keep on the basis of library holdings despite the obviously promotional intent and nature of the article, but that it was paid editing turns the balance for me also. If there is to be an article on her, it would best be done by removing this and starting over. The meaning of library holding for self-help books varies with the field, but for how to get ahead or get started in business, there is currently a great demand for them. PW reviews are not routine, btw, they review about 5% of the total book production. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to vote on the sources per GNG and not who wrote the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having been produced by a paid editor is neither here nor there. The article does not sit as overtly promotional or a NPOV violation and this is a simple notability question. I don't opine much on authors and don't see any reason to do so here other than to note that this subject should be considered on its own merits and not based upon what anyone feels about paid editing — which is not a violation of our policy and guidelines. Carrite (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree there. On a practical basis, we can categorize folks as clearly non-notable which would distract from the encyclopedia goals ("Brenda likes kittens"), the clearly notable where it would speak badly of our efforts if they weren't include ("He was the 37th president of the United States"), and a great mass in the middle who we could include but do not have to. We have some leeway. If we lean a bit toward deletion of promo articles by paid creators, we discourage their business and thus discourage them from continuing that business, which wastes other editors time as they strip away the promo and try to justify some usable article beneath. (Paid promo writers are more a problem than unpaid, because the unpaid will likely limit themselves to their own projects and products; paid will keep at it as long as they can find clients.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make above is that the insidious level of WP:PROMOTION here muddies the waters immensely. It's now very difficult to distinguish what could be genuine, independent-of-the-subject indicators of notability versus what is carefully-engineered puffery/promo/advert. Contrary to what's been asserted by Cardamom and Carrite, this is not like any other case. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Perhaps User:Benboy00 suggests the best way ahead for this (and other paid articles): delete, and if any person independent of the subject (and this AfD debate) finds the topic to be notable enough then let them recreate it. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

That's just making stuff up as you go. There is no policy-based reason for doing this, merely your opinion. There is no formal ban on paid editing. There is no informal ban on paid editing, as much as some Wikipedians wish there was. This is a straight up-or-down call based upon our General Notability Guideline and the Special Notability Guideline for authors. If people can't limit themselves to making the call on this basis, they should pack up their POV in a suitcase and move along. Carrite (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If "paid editing" is part of a larger promotional agenda – and there is very good information in this particular case that it is (selling books and increasing paid speaking engagements, the 2 businesses RoAne is in; Ms. RoAne's speaking fee minimum is $10,000, so there is ample motivation to game WP for material gain) – then there most certainly is "policy based" reason for doing this: WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia is not a shill and it is our policy not to be used to promote a 10K-a-pop motivational speaking business. Agricola44 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop using this AfD as a battleground to push anti paid-editing agendas. There is no policy against paid editing. PROMOTION is not a proxy rule for deleting paid editor articles. PROMOTION does not say notable articles should be deleted because of paid editors. It says "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources". The existence of this article is not promotional any more than any other article on Wikipedia. Just because she is in marketing and charges 10,000 for speaking engagements is not a valid reason to delete a ~~best-selling~~ popular author and speaking with a 25 year career covered widely in the media. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but to argue "this article is not promotional any more than any other article on Wikipedia" is patent nonsense. If indeed this is a "paid-for" article, it is the very essence of promotion on WP. Compensated editors are supposed to act according to WP:NOPR. You and I are not going to change each other's minds, so please argue-on without me. My advice, once again, is to tear this down and let disinterested editors start it over, if they so deem. Allowing it to stay as-is is tantamount to allowing WP to shill for this person. Thanks Agricola44 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

My Keep vote is not to be a "shill for this person". My vote is based solely on the rules of notability and sourcing. Your vote should be rules-based too. WP:NOPR doesn't say paid articles should be deleted nor does it trump WP:NOTE and GNG. --Green Cardamom (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using the Book-of-the-Month Club information from the article to refer to her as a "best-selling author", please realize that that's a pretty weak form of bestsellerdom. It's sales by a single retailer (for that matter, just one of many brands for that retailer) with a purposely limited selection, not an overview of general sales. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, about notability. By the usual standards of notability for authors, she's borderline notable. Multiple very widely held books from major publishers in the subject like Wiley, translations into multiple languages multiple reviews, some substantative In contrast, I am extremely reluctant to accept notability as a public speaker--this is a field where I consider even national level awards to be contaminated by PR, let alone the usual newspaper material. Fortunately, most public speakers have something to speak about, and we can look for notabity in that field. In her case, it's as a business networking expert. I'm not sure I would really accept it--her notability would be as a author who writes about that subject for the public, not as an expert in it. I am similarly very reluctant to accept notability as a consultant, but here again there's often some subject-based notability on the basis of which the individual is consulted.( I'm particularly reluctant with speakers and others who claim notability as life coaches and similar areas.)

Second, about COI. The unfiltered work of paid editors is unlikely to be acceptable here, though there are a few editors who have been successful in learning our requirements for sourcing and objectivity, as proven in the only way it can be proven, by their work here. But for any good-faith paid writer, there are several established ways of filtering the work: the editor can use talk space and ask for someone establshed to look at it; the editor can use AfC--and hope for a competent reviewer; some non-COI editort who understands how to do articles on the topic can take a hand in it. I've helped paid editors with notable topics in all three of these ways, and in each case I accept a ceertain degre of responsibility for the result (provided the COI editor doesn't come back and mess it up). If it is in my fields of competence and I don't want to take some degree of responsibility, I leave it for others or I try to get it deleted. And most of the time, deleted is the appropriate fate of such articles) . With volunteer editors also, many of them produce work that is only acceptable after revision, and the same methods of filtering apply. In this particular case, the principal contributors are Benboy, GreenCardamon , and NatGertler. Of the 3, it seems only GreenC is willing to defend the article at this point, ~~but I consider the editing of all 3 sufficient to remove the promotionalism.. This is all that's required.~~ On balance, this leaves it dubious It's true the ed. here was an undeclared paid ed., but this is still permitted by the current rules. Even tho I would require paid editors and others with COI to declare themselves, even this is not necessarily always reason for deletion if others have taken responsibility. (I cannot check from here if she is the sock of a previously banned editor, but even so we have sometimes in rare cases accepted the articles if responsible people have been willing to work on them.) 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

modified; looking at the whole thing again, my original opinion is actually the one I still hold. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing me a bit because we have votes from both DGG and DGG (at NYPL), and according to the latter's user page, it is just a second account for the same user. Now usually, when I see two !votes from one user, I just cross out the first !vote... but usually, it's two !votes in the same direction. I doubt that this is intended to be incompetent sockpuppetry, but if we could DGG and/or DGG@NYPL could clarify their situation and comments, it would be appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems DGG has weighed-in twice with contradictory !votes. I agree with Nat: normally one is immediately struck, but I think in this case we should defer to DGG himself to reconcile matters. I'll put a polite reminder on his talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

adjusted-- thanks for spotting this. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If anyone was unconvinced before, I think it's pretty difficult to argue deletion on Wikipedia policy grounds after Green Cardamom's work above. I understand the bad taste recent events have left in our mouths concerning COI, but the fact is that alone just isn't a good enough reason for deletion. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not impressed by the number of trivial mentions found. It just means that the subject has an industrious PR team. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

No evidence for that. Some of the sources aren't even positive. --Green Cardamom (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think it's helpful to trivialize paid promotion as just a "bad taste". This phenomenon is one the biggest foundational problems facing WP today because it undermines the very credibility of the entire project as an unbiased, objective knowledgebase. I think this is best illustrated by the fact that organized action is now being taken, for example (1) the Wikimedia Foundation is asking paid editors to cease and desist (widely covered in the media, e.g. in PC World and Guardian) and (2) paid accounts are being identified and permanently blocked, as is the case with ScoringGoals14 that created this article. Even if it is kept on this particular AfD, this article will continue to have problems because of its paid-for taint. The best solution is WP:NUKEANDPAVE, so that (presuming RoAne is indeed notable), a fresh untainted article can be created to replace this one. I hope the "keeps" here might reconsider in light this perspective. Thank you, Agricola44 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment While I haven't decided my ultimate position on this (it's "weak" either way), I will note that the promotional nature of the initial edits still has echoes in what's going on in the stripped-down version, per recent back-and-forth over whether such things as a one-sentence quote from the subject in Cosmo is vital enough to mention in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricola44: - the article is so small right now what will nukeandpave accomplish? Whoever recreates it will likely use many of the sources already cited there and by Green Cardamom here. Regardless of the amount of bad press has resulted -- regardless of how bad the problem is -- what part of the deletion procedure and AfD criteria says "if the article was previously the product of paid editing, delete no matter what?" --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Paid editing does not demonstrate non-notability. However, the article needs to be rewritten to a neutral version. Epicgenius (talk)18:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I and others here agree. The question is how to go about it. What do you think of simply starting over, whereby there would no longer be any association with the "pay" problem of the original article? Agricola44 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I've edited the article and added reliable sources. Those sources need to be worked into the article at some point, but I don't believe there should be any concerns of neutrality at this point. If there are, please specify which words and/or sources are not neutral so they can be addressed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just undid this edit, as it seems to mess up the article pretty badly. Adding them to the talk page sounds like a good idea, so that they can be incorporated as and when they are used in the text. At the moment, the article is pretty much a stub. If this person is considered slightly notable, then this seems like an appropriate length of article, although maybe the lead should be a few (one or two) lines longer. Benboy00 (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the five pillars, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. It is in the best interest of a credible encyclopedia to keep out advertising and promotion. To protect Wikipedia and uphold it's integrity we should put aside other considerations and delete spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had a large and contentious vote recently if paid editors should be allowed on Wikipedia. There were some passionate views expressed against paid editors, such as the one you express here, but no consensus was achieved. --Green Cardamom (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG, Duffbeerforme, and especially per Agricola44 who points out just how deep this web of promotion goes. When the best sources presented (by one paid to do so, no less!) are promotional and inadequate, it can safely be assumed that there is nothing out there to satisfy our notability guidelines. Stripped of its promotional sources, the article is nothing but a short stub about a nonnotable author. Them From Space 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The so called "deep web of promotion" is a dramatic fiction. No one has presented evidence that the sources are the result of PR. In fact, some of the book reviews are negative. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Editors should be aware of the symbiotic relationship between publicists and journalists. The former are paid to distribute press releases or other material to journalists with the object of promoting their employer's interests. The latter publish (sometimes even verbatim) the material to fill their journals' pages and earn their living. Thus the presence of a large number of trivial mentions of a matter may mean no more than that a large amount of money has been spent on public relations. This comprises a significant part of the material published in today's media. Wikipedia editors need to have the discernment to recognize such material when they find it. Green Cardamom's industry and zeal are beyond reproach, but what he has dug up is not precious metal but the fool's gold of the vapid effluvia of the public relations industry. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Some of the sources are so clearly independent they say negative/critical things about RoAne. I hate to go down this road of pulling up negatives about RoAne just to prove the sources have independence, we shouldn't have to do that, sources are not required to say critical things in order to be independent. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the sources are critical does not mean they are independent. PR hacks do not always get the response they desire to the blurb they issue. Have you heard the saying "The only bad publicity is no publicity". Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Style/layout errors? Benboy00 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources will pass at WP:RSN (from outside neutral parties). Your claims are unfounded and unsupported. There is no evidence these sources are the result of "publicists" or "PR hacks". Stop trying to disparage a 25 year career as nothing more than the result of PR, you really have no idea what you are talking about and are just making stuff up. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The length of a person's career is irrelevant for Wikipedia's BLP policy. Wikipedia has a full and clear warning of the dangers of writing an article about oneself. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I question if it is appropriate to canvas at the list of content for rescue consideration before closure of an AfD? One Keep vote from an active member of the squadron arrived an hour after the canvas was made. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
AfD is the purpose of Article Rescue Squadron see Wikipedia:ARSSCOPE#Scope. Create an RfC or post at CANVAS if you must however this topic is likely old news and well covered in past discussions. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read through the articles about her, such as the two referenced in the article right now, and she clearly passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 23:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is now an ongoing content dispute with the article. I tried to compromise and remove any trace of paid editing but also include the 30+ sources found above,[5] User:Dream Focus wants to be more inclusive of the original sources which has merit,[6] and User:Benboy00 (nominator) has reverted both to a very stripped down version with almost no text or sources.[7] Green Cardamom (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The person trying to delete the article at AFD, should not blank a large portion of the article. Listing how many major newspapers and magazines publish a writer's work, is standard in articles for them. No possible reason to remove that or the information about her education. Dream Focus 03:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well this is getting a little peculiar. @Green Cardamom: how is this version of the article an acceptable "compromise"? 5% article, 20% a list of her work, 75% "additional references" and "book reviews." (??) Perhaps this is a more appropriate discussion to have on the article talk page, but I do have to sympathize with Benboy00 on this one, even though I'm in favor of keeping the article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was trying to compromise with the deletionists who complained there was text in the article written by a paid editor, so I gutted the entire article to a 2-sentence stub, removed sources which deletionists had complained about, and added the 30+ reliable sources I found above which are significantly more in depth. The book reviews are of course important for keeping see WP:AUTHOR #3 they establish notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book reviews establish notability, so link them here or on the talk page if not working them into the actual text of the article. It still has to be an encyclopedia article, after all. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the books get reviews, they are notable enough to have their own articles. Dream Focus 10:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those challenging the sources Green Cardamom listed: on what basis are you dismissing what appears to be a glut of references? Speculation about publicists' relationships to publishers or newspaper/magazine editors, being speculation, has no business being part of this discussion. If it's a reliable source it's a reliable source. Is there evidence? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article in its original form served not to inform, but to promote. The article in its current form serves not to inform, but merely to excuse its own existence. It is big sodding list of reference that are there merely to claim this person is notable and thus deserves an article. This does not make for a healthy article. It may arguably fit the rules of Wikipedia, but it does not serve the goals of Wikipedia. Subject may be of sufficient notability that she is an acceptable topic for a Wikipedia article, but she is not of such notability that her non-inclusion until someone is willing to write a proper article would be damaging to our efforts. WP:TNT --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is (supposedly) a topic level discussion about the mere existence of a topic. The state of the article shouldn't be that much of a factor as it's surmountable with editing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. References exist to prove the information in the article, and all of them are perfectly valid. Dream Focus 10:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have been lading this article with every reference they could find, it seems, and it doesn't serve the article; it seems to be material only placed in there for making the AfD. Author articles in Wikipedia would not typically have a yard-long list of reviews. They would not typically include a citation for the subject having a one-sentence quotation on the Cosmo website or two local radio interviews (they might include the interviews in "external links" if the interview was illuminative). Sources are being pointed to not for information but to show that sources exist. It's basically having an article not on the subject, but on the reason the subject should have a Wikipedia page. That does not serve Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment concerning the article changes since the AfD began. As pointed out above, the nominator -- intentionally or not -- has made significant changes to the article post-nomination which weaken its case for keeping.
- This is the version of the article when the AfD began.
- Green Cardamom, in response, I think, to the discussion here, removed article text, extracting the references and copying them, with several others to "additional references" and "book reviews" at the bottom of the article (see [diff). While I understand his good faith reasons for doing so, I don't myself agree with the move. Neither, it seems, did Benboy00, who just deleted all of them without restoring the text (i.e. instead of reverting).
- Dream Focus then restored a version very similar to the article as it was when nominated. This was also reverted.
- The result is a version far inferior to what it was when nominated. I'm not saying anyone acted in bad faith, but it highlights the potential problems when nominators or others with a vested interest in an AfD make substantial and controversial changes to the article mid-process. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just revert the guy. If I keep reverting him it'll be seen as edit warring. Need someone else to revert him also. There is no possible justification for his content removal. Dream Focus 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that that would be a good starting place if someone wants to rebuild the article. From what I can tell, this is what Green Cardamom believes also. He also included a lot of unused sources, which I agree could be used in a rebuild, but should not be put on the actual article itself unless/until they are used, and should instead be kept on the talk page. I still believe that this person is non-notable, and should not have an article at all, but if I am wrong, the issue of paid editing is still apparently very important to a large number of those voting in this AfD. Many people seem to favour at least a rewrite, which this version is appropriate for. I'm sorry if editing during the AfD caused any significant confusion among voters, although I assumed that it was standard practice. If that isn't allowed, then it seems that Green Cardamom is also in the wrong (although I do not think he is). I shall put a link at the top of the AfD for anyone who wants to look at the article pre-changes. On the point about no possible justification, this is incorrect. There are several possible justifications, one of which is that the edit removes the material that is considered promotional by many in this AfD. You may not agree with this justification (I assume you dont), and that is fine, but say that no justification exists at all seems silly. Benboy00 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please do not escalate matters by inviting others to participate in edit warring. It will only invite the same behavior from the other side and make matters appreciably worse. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
      - If they believe the removal of content was wrong, they can hit UNDO same as I did. Dream Focus 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That it the very essence of edit warring. You seem to be inviting it and this will get you in trouble. Please take some friendly advice and do not pursue that line of action any further. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
        No, it isn't. If two editors are in dispute over something, a third needs to get involved. There has been no valid reason given for the removal of that information. As I said on the talk page, She is notable for being a writer, so mentioning what newspapers and magazines she has written for, is something that should be in the article. This is something commonly found in articles for writers, linking to what notable places they have written for. Dream Focus 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm afraid this demonstrates is the very phenomenon I described above: the "well is poisoned" for this article because of the underhanded way it was created, i.e. as a paid, but undisclosed advocacy piece whose purpose was to directly benefit the subject monetarily in terms of promoting her consulting business and increasing her lucrative fee-based public speaking appearances. This is very unsettling to most editors, who work for the benefit of WP and understand that such articles undermine the very credibility of the entire WP project as an unbiased, objective knowledgebase. If kept, the article will very likely continue to have the same problems as it is now experiencing. The only reasonable way around this is WP:NUKEANDPAVE. If the article is recreated properly, it will be free of taint. Agricola44 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Is this a haunted well, where ghost will haunt us forever? What are you talking about? There is no possible reason to be hating the article, just because how it got started. And destroying it just to recreate it with the exact same information in it, makes no sense at all. Just wasting everyone's time there. Dream Focus 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for playing the "hate card". Can I expect the "Hitler card" in short order? Agricola44 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Stop the drama and escalation will you please? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Green Cardamom, can I ask, is that what you wanted when you did that edit that I removed the extra sources from ( i.e. you thought that the article should be rewritten, and you were providing sources that could be used as well as trimming the article down to unobjectionable content)? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick? Benboy00 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're frustrated, but the discussion will be derailed very quickly by Ad hominem comments about hating and invitations to edit war such as are now coming from Dream Focus. I think it's important that we maintain some order and decorum and such responses are not helpful. I'm sorry I seem to be the "adult in the room" that has to point this out. Now, shall we get back to topic and discuss the article itself? Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You hate/dislike the article because of how it was created, and suggested wasting everyone's time by deleting it just to recreate it again without the "taint". There is no "hate card", nor did I encourage edit warring. Stop being so melodramatic. Dream Focus 18:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think you were doing when you said "just revert the guy. If I keep reverting him it'll be seen as edit warring"? Please stop that. Thank you. Agricola44 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

@Agricola44: - your argument about "taint," "tinge," and the spectre of wikipromotion still lacks merit in this deletion procedure. Relevant to Wikipedia and to the article? Absolutely -- and in fact this is far more effort than I ever thought I'd spend defending a former PR article -- but as you're using the arguments here amounts to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also that it's likely to be the target of paid editing in the future is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. So what of the reasons for deletion is it? Notability? Then specifically what notability criteria does it fail, taking into consideration the glut of sources that have appeared here? You based an earlier comment on the speculation that "The problem is that these may not really be independent of RoAne. She is in the promotion business." May not really be? What kind of system would we have if that kind of baseless doubt-casting determined outcomes of these discussions? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the first part of your point, I refer you to DGG's very convincing arguments above regarding notability, the sources, etc. As to your second point, I invite you to think about the financial motivations Ms. RoAne has for this article, the circumstances of how this article was created and who had the motivation to pay for it, and how this article might be perceived by readers at large as a conflict-of-interest and non-neutral and then ask yourself 2 questions; (1) Despite a list of references that verify Ms RoAne's existence, her books, etc., is it possible that the article itself is un-encyclopedic or is here for un-encyclopedic purposes? (2) Is it possible that this article and others like it might hurt the credibility of WP? I and some others here have legitimate concerns about these issues and feel their gravity far outweighs the importance of a single article on a borderline-notable individual (remember, I !voted weak keep on 1st AfD) and feel absurd accusations about "hating" the article and invitations to others to revert-in-kind are extremely unhelpful. This AfD has taken much time, so I'm retiring to the sidelines now. I hope the discussion can get back on track. Thanks so much, Agricola44 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
To claim that Agricola44 is arguing WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is to, frankly, ignore what he (and apparently others) are saying, much of which addresses the question of whether this article has an appropriate encyclopediac nature. To insist that the argument for deletion be phrased in terms of WP:DEL-REASON is to ignore the actual text there, which makes clear that the reasons for deletion "are not limited to" the reasons listed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trevj#Q11 is relevant because it gives an opinion on this AfD. The fact that it was "at a fixed point in time" doesn't make it more or less valid than any other comment. Benboy00 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:BASIC. Per my comment of 12:11, 25 November 2013 above, I'm still not able to access and therefore evaluate those sources. If able to do so, I could decide whether to move from the delete view I put forward in the previous AfD. As it is, I can't - therefore my view is weakened rather than fully changed. It seems that perhaps we should have an article on one of the subject's most notable books (presumably How To Work a Room) and then redirect this title there. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Hill Preschool Castleton NY

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

non-notable preschool -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could've just prodded it really. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. It seems inconceivable that a preschool might be notable and this one most certainly isn't. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nice pre-school in Castleton, New York, southeast of Albany, but run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 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 delete. Tone 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kimball design approach

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

Data warehousing might be a notable topic, but this article is almost incoherent, contains no sources, and appears to contain significant original research in a how-to format. Kinu ^t/_c 22:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Data warehouse article already contains partially-referenced discussion of the Kimball vs Inmon approaches; not perfect but a better context for any non-WP:NOTMANUAL material on this topic. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were any sources, could be merged into Ralph Kimball perhaps. But with no sources, it seems like a personal essay or how-to. Not a Wikipedia topic. W Nowicki (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article. More like an essay. Steven Walling • talk 08:14, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Bronson Cartano

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

All current references are to a family history website, article apparently written by one of her decedents, web search finds only primary and unreliable sources. Article is primarily an obituary. No demonstration the subject meets WP:GNG --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG -- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 00:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MEMORIAL -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:35, 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Hastal Prague Old Town

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

Not notable hotel, the article is like advertisement, without any third-party sources. Yopie (talk) 21:21, 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfuric acid anodizing electrolyte method.

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

Poorly written, unsourced, original research article about anodizing. Duplicates some of the content already covered at anodizing. This article was apparently created as a WP:COATRACK for adding a spam link to a vendor of anodized aluminum products. I do not see that there is anything in the article worth salvaging. - Mr X 21:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolbasz (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article creator has attempted to spam his website into other articles and admits to a WP:COI of the manager of the commercial website.Martin451 19:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Simple Walk Into Mordor

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

There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that establish notability per WP:GNG. There are sources that mention the project, mostly in the form of a couple of paragraphs and a link to one or another of the episodes. They could also just be re-written press releases since they all contain substantially the same information. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:00, 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 21:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 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, buff bills 7701 03:05, 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) 04:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources present on the article, except for one news story that doesn't even mention the subject of this article. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or other inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:36, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rooster Teeth Shorts

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

There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that establish the notability of this series. A search turns up one partial review of a combined DVD release but I'm not sure how reliable the source is. Regardless, the one source is insufficient on its own to meet WP:GNG. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:57, 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, buff bills 7701 03:05, 1 December 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 December 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly sourced and fails to pass GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 03:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources to help this pass our general notability guidelines at this time. SarahStierch (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States tornadoes from November to December 2013

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

Duplicates November 17, 2013 tornado outbreak, which already contains this list. No other tornadoes included, so it doesn't even cover what the article title indicates. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the page only includes tornadoes from the November 17 outbreak because those are the only tornadoes that have been confirmed during the month so far. If additional tornadoes do occur, they will be added to the page. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reason as is given by TropicalAnalyst. Tornadoes are added to these lists as they are documented, and so far, only that outbreak has produced tornadoes in the U.S. this month. If historical records are any indicator, we can expect at least a few more tornadoes will be added to this list. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination I didn't realize there is apparently a project to list all US tornadoes by two-month calendar periods. I should have checked before nominating. Mea culpa. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 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 keep. And move to Midisho. Sandstein 09:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeshi

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

I could not find any traces on the internet about this village; there are some results for medeshivalley but they seem to be irrelevant since none makes mention of this village. Itemirus (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have to agree with Itemirus as such I haven't been able to find very few sources that mention it at all. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename While this is definitely not a reliable source, one of the entries on it does suggest that Medeshi is a variant name for what Google Maps shows as Midhisho (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), which verifiably fits most of the information in the article. And, while I can not prove it, I think it likely to be the same place as Medishe (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), which gets quite a lot of coverage as one of the first places to suffer aerial bombardment during a colonial war, the Somaliland campaign (1920) against Mohammed Abdullah Hassan. Seeing that Somali did not have a standardised Latin orthography until about 40 years ago and has not exactly been a common tourist destination at any time since then, some variation in placenames, particularly of smaller places, is perhaps to be expected. PWilkinson (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename. The information above seems accurate and a move to a different spelling, perhaps with a redirect, is the right course. JodyB_talk 18:04, 20 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) 01:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mubariz

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

Unsourced article about a surname. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 19:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 19:28, 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 12:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:APONOTE this article fails inclusion as a list because it only has one entry, and fails inclusion as a stand-alone article because it is not notable, not sourced and hA very little content. —Noiratsi (talk) 12:58, 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) 03:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MET Laboratories, Inc.

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

Fails the general notability guideline after a brief good-faith search for sources; most sources I found were passing mentions or press releases, the most extensive independent coverage I could find was two short paragraphs in a book.[8] —me_and 19:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —me_and 19:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —me_and 19:17, 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 19:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only because I hit one edit conflict and one server error. sigh —me_and 19:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:52, 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, buff bills 7701 12:40, 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) 04:23, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Matakevich

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

Non-notable amateur; fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as I read it. Orange Mike | Talk 19:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage that I can find appears to be local and on his high school playing career, and high school players are rarely notable. I see no exception here. He could achieve notability through WP:GNG from his college play, but I don't see that as achieved just yet. I recommend that the article creator try another wiki for now and when he's ready, we will be too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH as well as WP:GNG. Lacks significant achievements and independent coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:57, 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) 01:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bitácora Gastronómica de Venezuela

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

Previously PRODed article that creator de-PRODed. Having searched for more refs I believe this Spanish language cookbook does not meet WP:NBOOK. The book is written by a Carlos E La Cruz. An article on him (created by the same user) got deleted on November 12 but was re-created on November 23. Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage found. --Michig (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence anywhere of notability. (The article, about a book by Carlos E La Cruz, was created by an editor with a long history (using more than one account) of posting unambiguous spam about Carlos E La Cruz, sometimes recreating articles after deletion, either under the same title or under a new title.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:51, 28 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Windows Vista

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

POV split of Windows Vista which gives undue weight to the criticism faced by the OS. Windows 8 and ME were equally panned, but they have criticism integrated into the article in neutral fashion. Suggesting redirect to Reception section, but keeping history for license compliance. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As legitimate spinout of main article with sourced content. There may be some POV issues to certain parts, but it isn't so serious as to require deletion. Criticism articles are a common part of Wikipedia and though they're controversial, many have been kept at AfD (though you might think renaming to "reception" or similar would be more neutral). Incorporating third party reviews and commentary is central to ensuring Wikipedia is more than just a list of product specifications and release logs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... this isn't a "POV split", this is a subject unto itself that received significant press coverage in 2006 and 2007. Even the subject of how much criticism Windows Vista was receiving was covered by news agencies! I'd also argue that criticism of Windows Vista was quite a lot more significant than other versions of Windows; consider that this article currently cites 85 sources, which is above-average for any Wikipedia article. On top of that, please remember that Microsoft Windows is a MASSIVE subject. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles covering it. We simply cannot cover all the salient points to appropriate depth in the ~850 words that are currently in the summarized criticism in the main Windows Vista article. Warren -talk- 04:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets the WP:GNG criteria fairly easily, although there may be a case for renaming it "Reactions to...", to make it more neutral.Squareanimal (talk) 11:03, 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) 01:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waj (language)

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

Fails notability criteria; simply one individual's personal constructed language, of which there are thousands that have enough documentation to create articles like this. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed the original prod template as a curtesy because he main author of the article had attached a hangon tag for speedy deletion. Didn't look much at the article at the time, but having looked over it now I agree with Metaknowledge. An a priori language only spoken by one person fails WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The archetype of something made up one day, without any coverage in reliable sourcing. Frankly, does this qualify for A11? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:57, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abby tarver

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

Well, this is a new one. It appears to be copied and pasted from the article on I Love Lucy, but with the title changed to "I Abby Tarver" and with the actors and actresses's names changed as well. I tagged it as a hoax, and I think it should be deleted as such. Jinkinson talk to me 16:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:15, 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. Was deleted by User:Coffee as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind turbines in Thuringia (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind turbines in Germany

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

The sub-lists linked from this list are being considered for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability and being completely unreferenced from the required secondary sources. The lists are such that secondary supporting sources are unlikely to ver be found, and I have not been able to find any myself. In the event the linked lists are deleted, then this list requires deletion as it will no longer fulfil any purpose. I B Wright (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:53, 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) 01:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably premature to relist this item until the fate of the sub-lists has been decided. I B Wright (talk) 14:11, 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 // 17:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind turbines in Thuringia

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

The article List of wind turbines was recently nominated for deletion. the result of the discussion was that the article was deleted (See here for the full discussion). It occurs to me that the criteria and reasons levied at that article apply more or less exactly to these articles. I B Wright (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: these were combined at my suggestion when the nominator was having problems listing them separately. I know that bulk AfDs are generally frowned on, but these are so similar that I really do not think we need a dozen separate debates. JohnCD (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Pburka (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the arguments that I proposed for the deletion of List of wind turbines applies equally to this clutch of articles. They are unreferenced (and secondary sources are highly unlikely to be found). They are just a list and do not link to any other articles. And along with the List of wind turbines in Germany, they are effectivle an orphaned clutch of lists with nothing linking to them. 86.157.171.144 (talk) 19:22, 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 delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind turbines in Switzerland

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

The article List of wind turbines was recently nominated for deletion. the result of the discussion was that the article was deleted (See here for the full discussion). It occurs to me that the criteria and reasons levied at that article apply more or less exactly to this article. I B Wright (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE~~: The criteria for the previous deletion apply almost exactly to this list entirely unreferenced from the required secondary sources. I B Wright (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to !vote twice in a single AfD (nomination counts as an automatic delete !vote), so I have struck your second !vote. --Mark viking (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All of the arguments that I proposed for the deletion of List of wind turbines applies equally to this article. It is unreferenced (and secondary sources are highly unlikely to be found). It is just a list and an orphan with nothing linking to it. 86.157.171.144 (talk) 19:24, 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 Special Police Dekaranger . Go for it! Merge away. Merge into Special Police Dekaranger and create a list. SarahStierch (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space Criminals Alienizer

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

Does not meet notability or GNG for stand alone; detailed information on characters from Tokusou Sentai Dekaranger. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Special Police Dekaranger to create a List of Tokusou Sentai Dekaranger characters article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Since Dekaranger is one of the first to have a monster index on its site, those sources can be added.Fractyl (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fractyl, those are still first-party sources so they do not prove that the list is notable on its own.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to create a List of Tokusou Sentai Dekaranger characters seconded. I don't think it's notable enough to keep as a separate page. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:22, 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 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Stewart (actor)

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

Does not meet N/GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Numerous searches did not provide any significant or in-depth sources so basically this article is going to mirror everything IMDb lists. There's nothing to improve this article and thus a page about him is better suited at IMDb than an encyclopedia. If any chance he becomes notable one day, I'm open to a future article. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and unreferenced. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 07:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Sato (actor)

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

Unsourced BLP with questionable notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 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 15:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, his entry at the Japanese Wikipedia shows a plethora of roles, both major and minor (seen here), as well as mentions in Japanese entertainment news (1, 2), interviews for his part in Kamen Rider Kabuto (1, 2), and his reprising of that latter role in a video game ([11]).—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beyond the articles Ryulong found, there are quite a number of RS on him, many centered on his well-reported relationship with Rena Tanaka ([12], [13], [14], [15]); but others related to new roles or other gossip ([16], [17], [18]). I think this is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has had several significant roles, and has been covered by several reliable sources. Those sources should be added to the article though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources have been found to establish notability, the concern for this AfD has been met. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are multiple sources to establish notability on this biography of a living person per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:30, 28 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 ♔ 02:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin T. Orifici

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

Non-notable film maker lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Article references lack independence. Film is a small budget independent production. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 14:58, 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 15:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 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) 01:48, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Yes, there was a delete !vote, but considering the rest of that comment I'm not certain it was meant for this AFD. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aisenshi

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

Does not meet WP:NBAND or N/GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Additionally, I just CSD A7ed it. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely passes both NBAND and GNG, as it is comprised of Anthem's front man Eizo Sakamoto and his collaborative partner from Animetal She-ja who is notable in his own right, but I've yet to produce an article on him on the English Wikipedia. You can see more discussions of the group here and here. I will be adding these sources to the article shortly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator withdrawl - Ryulong appears correct, I didn't do enough research on it before nominating it. With that being said, its maybe questionable for a wee bit, but it'll meet GNG and I know of IRON ATTACK! from their Touhou work and their considerable impact. Its just finding English sources that is my problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ryulong, as the article's subject meets GNG. Would have non-admin closed this AfD, but because of the Delete !vote, let the AfD run its course. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK #1 Nom has withdrawn deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 28 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) 01:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Burns (architect)

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

Obviously a capable golf course designer (he received 3rd place for a magazine award in 2000), but this article has languished for years cited only to his CV. I can't see any other reliable coverage about him or his contributions to landscape design. No evidence he passes WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Sionk (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is outdated; according to his own LinkedIn profile, he now works for Classic Landscape Design. But there is another Steve Burns who is a fellow of the American Institute of Architects and more notable; I can't find much of anything on the golf course designer, and if someone else does, I suggest moving it to (landscape architect) or (golf course designer). Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 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 delete. Tone 16:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rangers Strike cards

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

Unencyclopedic list of each individual card in Rangers Strike covered by WP:NOT. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Rangers Strike game is not even proven notable, being an unsourced article. There's no justification to list evey element of the game on a Wikipedia list article - the cards are listed on the website. Sionk (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The game, however, is notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of cruft has no place in an encyclopedia. Thanks to Chris for trying to cleanup the Anime project.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with anime or manga, though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 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 delete. Tone 16:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Masked Rider Expansion cards

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

Violates WP:NOT, a list of all cards from the expansion of Rangers Strike in complete and total detail down to the "Rarity" and type of card. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Rangers Strike game is not even proven notable, being an unsourced article. There's no justification to list every element of the game on a Wikipedia list article - the cards are listed on the website. It would have helped if these related articles had been listed on one AfD! Sionk (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The game, however, is notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of XGather cards

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

WP:NOT is probably the best reason for deleting this card list of Rangers Strike cards. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Rangers Strike game is not even proven notable, being an unsourced article. There's no justification to list every card of the game on a Wikipedia list article - the cards are listed on the website. It would have helped if these related articles had been listed on one AfD! Sionk (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The game, however, is notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of promotional Rangers Strike cards

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

Completely unnecessary list and split from Rangers Strike we do not list promotional trading cards independently from their core article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Rangers Strike game is not even proven notable, being an unsourced article. There's no justification to list every element of the game on a Wikipedia list article - the cards are listed in simlar format on the website. It would have helped if these related articles had been listed on one AfD! Sionk (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The game, however, is notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 22:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Stronger (character)

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

Does not meet N or GNG, unsourced, and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs to be cleaned up and treated like a fictional character, but subject is the protagonist of a nearly 40-year-old TV series in Japan, so sources will be difficult, but not impossible, to come by. I believe I have a book at home that discusses him, along with the other fictional characters in the franchise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I second it as he is the main protagonist of his series and has made numerous appearances in future entries.Fractyl (talk) 12:31, 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 keep. Keep for now. Please propose any merges on the article talk pages per Wikipedia:Merge#Proposing_a_merger SarahStierch (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skyrider (Kamen Rider)

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

Does not meet N or GNG and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs to be cleaned up and treated like a fictional character, but subject is the protagonist of a nearly 30-year-old TV series in Japan, so sources will be difficult, but not impossible, to come by. I believe I have a book at home that discusses him, along with the other fictional characters in the franchise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I second it as he is the main protagonist of his series and has made numerous appearances in future entries.Fractyl (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If there are sources later made available, it can be brought back, but it should not continue to exist in its current state without sources. TTN (talk) 17:08, 30 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) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kamen Rider (Skyrider). If sources show up, it can be restored. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a good reason to keep an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is the wrong target. This is the main character of Kamen Rider (Skyrider).—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 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) 01:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless there is a relevant article where it can be merged without causing the type of confusion already shown above. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:30, 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 redirect to List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider TheBee

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

Does not meet N or GNG; it is a fictional "battle suit" used by the characters and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 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 redirect to List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider PunchHopper

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

Does not meet N or GNG and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 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 redirect to Kamen Rider Hibiki. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Todoroki

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

Does not meet N or GNG, unsourced since 2008 and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect whatever the character list is for Kamen Rider Hibiki; I cannot recall what it is at the moment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 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 redirect to Kamen Rider Hibiki. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Ibuki

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

Does not meet N or GNG, unsourced since 2006 and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect whatever the character list is for Kamen Rider Hibiki; I cannot recall what it is at the moment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 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 redirect to List of Kamen Rider Den-O characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Nega Den-O

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

Does not meet N or GNG entirely about a fictional villain transformation and goes into great detail about his vehicles with no indication of stand alone notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kamen Rider Den-O characters or Imagin, I can't remember where this particular character is mentioned at the moment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 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 redirect to List of Kamen Rider Den-O characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Gaoh

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

Does not meet N/GNG stand alone requirements, both sources are unidentified magazine scans on photobucket. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kamen Rider Den-O characters; although I do believe that there were sources supporting notability, but they have just become difficult to come by due to the age and the fact that a major Japanese newspaper does not keep its online archives that long.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 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 keep and cleanup. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Black (character)

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

Not one source, in-universe prose that doesn't distinguish fiction from reality and does not meet N or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs to be cleaned up and treated like a fictional character, but subject is the protagonist of a nearly 30-year-old TV series in Japan, so sources will be difficult, but not impossible, to come by. I believe I have a book at home that discusses him, along with the other fictional characters in the franchise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I second it as he is the main protagonist of his series and has made numerous appearances in future entries.Fractyl (talk) 12:30, 30 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) 01:18, 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, — Keithbob • Talk • 19:21, 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. JodyB_talk 12:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Zangetsu

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

Does not meet Notability guidelines for stand alone page, sources are all primary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 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 14:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, featured in the following articles regarding the series' premiere: http://mantan-web.jp/2013/07/25/20130725dog00m200031000c.html, http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/2026955/full/, http://anime.webnt.jp/report/view/3057, [19] Although, another option might be to set up as a redirect to List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters, as the information about armaments is not really relevant to discussion of the character.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This Rider article needs to be a part of the Rider collection articles of a certain Rider Series' template (i.e. Baron, Zangetsu, and Ryugen in template:Kamen Rider Gaim). Hansen Sebastian 10:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. It fails to establish notability, and unless the above links add some sort of real world information to the article, they don't have much worth in being added. TTN (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They provide information on the character as well as the actor who portrays him so yes, I believe that is met.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of information is it? Does it provide actual detail as to the creation, development, or reception of the character? Without context, it could just be trivial mentions for all I can tell, which are worthless for notability. TTN (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this one, the actor portraying the character discusses the character and how he feels he should be portraying the character amongst the much younger cast members, as well as mentioning the character's design motif. This piece also mentions the design motif, but the whole article is very short.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like it'd be more relevant to Kamen Rider Gaim#Production and development than the character article. It already has a bit about one of the other actors, so it would certainly fit. I don't really see it as significant enough to allow it to support an entire article unless there is some accompanying reception info. TTN (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it regards the particular character the actor talking about his role would fit better on the article on the role itself.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:11, 30 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) 01:17, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters or delete. These kinds of in-universe biographies are more suited to Wikia. As TTN says, production details can go to the main article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the actor discussing his role then it is more related to the discussion of the character rather than any discussion of the series as a whole.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or else Merge all content into List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:21, 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 no consensus. There are proposals to merge this with a list of characters, but that is a discussion for the talkpage at this point. In any case, there is no consensus for an outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Ryugen

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

Does not meet Notability guidelines for stand alone page, sources are all primary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, featured in the following articles regarding the series' premiere: http://mantan-web.jp/2013/07/25/20130725dog00m200031000c.html, http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/2026955/full/, http://anime.webnt.jp/report/view/3057, [20] Although, another option might be to set up as a redirect to List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters, as the information about armaments is not really relevant to discussion of the character.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, same reason as the Kamen Rider Zangetsu AfD. Hansen Sebastian 10:12, 26 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) 01:17, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a character from a toy movie. There is no independent notability here, besides a couple of mentions in the usual fanzines. If the practice of these manga/tokusatsu/whatever editors was followed wiki-wide, then every single character in every single movie and TV show would warrant an article. The "information" currently in the article could easily be merged into the main article. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is one of the main characters in the TV series, not a movie, so he is independently notable. Interviews are found in the various links I posted above with the actor about his role.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? How many of these people would get their own articles, fictional biography and all? None, and for a very good reason. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't from a movie. It is from a television series that will be on TV for another 9 months and will also be featured in a film in box offices this weekend and again in August of 2014 and next December. Individual articles exist for fictional characters all over this project and your dismissal is unnecessarily flippant. Yes, the character may just be part of a 50 or so episode, three feature film toy commercial, but that doesn't make the subject not notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters or delete. I agree with Drmies. These articles are more suited to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or else Merge all content into List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:18, 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 merge to List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters. Merge into List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters and leave redirect behind. JodyB_talk 19:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Baron

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

Does not meet Notability guidelines for stand alone page, sources are all primary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, featured in the following articles regarding the series' premiere: http://mantan-web.jp/2013/07/25/20130725dog00m200031000c.html, http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/2026955/full/, http://anime.webnt.jp/report/view/3057, [21] Although, another option might be to set up as a redirect to List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters, as the information about armaments is not really relevant to discussion of the character.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 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) 01:18, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters or delete. More in-universe biographies of non-notable fictional characters. These are more suited to Wikia, where notability and reliable sources are unnecessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I not list three separate reliable sources where the subject is discussed above?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or else Merge all content into List of Kamen Rider Gaim characters with redirect. Note that merging will make the list article far too large if the other characters up for deletion are also merged. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the character list and merge at editors' discretion. Only in-universe information, no indication of independent notability. Sandstein 09:24, 21 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. KTC (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garjana - A fight against rape

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

No references, very few Google results. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Jinkinson talk to me 13:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:49, 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 12:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to see if I could find any evidence of notability, I did not succeed Ottawakismet (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)][reply]

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

Delete per this article being TOO SOON. I spent a few moments straightening up the article, and while some of the principals are notable, this has not resulted in this as-yet-unreleased film receiving the requisite coverage to make it an exception under WP:NFF (paragraph 3).[22] Okay to userfy it back to its author until coverage is forthcoming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:33, 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 delete. Tone 16:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hodopathy

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

This has absolutely no scholar footprint that I can find, and all the sources are to some newspaper articles. It doesn't even show up in book sources, scholarly or otherwise. We cannot source an ALTMED article off of a bunch of news reports, and the use of a pseudo-scientific name for something that has no scientific trace tends to suggest that this isn't what it's depicted as anyway. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it to do with injuries sustained using coal carrying apparatus? We could use the coal to burn it with fire. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It stands at the intersection of WP:FRINGE, low notability, and self-promotion. Unlikely that we could ever get appropriate sources to cover it neutrally, let alone medically reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 November 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:MEDRS quality sources available. jps (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As above, no notability, no MEDRS sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient quality & quantity of sources to make an encyclopdia entry. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, fringe. -- Scray (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bobrayner said it best: it is both fringe and non-notable as well as (probably) promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 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) 01:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Sports Company

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

After creating this article when I first joined, I have now come to realize that it probably never really met the notability guidelines. As others have edited it, it can't be G7 CSDed so I am nominating it as an AfD on the grounds that it is non notable. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 13:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checking Google News archives and Google Books finds no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. And the article creator and sole author of its substantive text content requests deletion. Qwfp (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USB Easy Transfer Cable SDK or API

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

Non-notable product. While not blatantly promotional, the material here is more of the user's guide variety rather than a description of a notable product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too many style problems and lack of sources means a merge would not be worth it. Subject already has a place in Easy Transfer Cable#API or SDK which also needs sourcing and explaining what those acronyms mean. Way too soon to spin off that stub section to its own article. W Nowicki (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence device is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Why delete?, I have used, very good, SDK is free, what is promotional? This description of a notable product,not user's guide, the user's guide of the product has more than 50 pages,guide user use the sdk with VS6.0,VS2008,VS2010,Linux C/C++,Delphi,Java, the articles and user's guide completely different. In order to monopolize the market, all manufacturers do not provide API, developers need the SDK, the SDK is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.1.13.185 (talk) 02:22, 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 KEEP. The nominator agrees the topic is notable and clean up is underway. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PernixData

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

Just nine Google News hits. I checked Google News Archive as well, but in the archive there are zero hits. Please delete.

[Edit: MelanieN has convinced me that the subject passes WP:CORP. But still, our entire article reads like a press release. Even the lead section reads like a press release. The original author is a SPA, and each of the article's four major contributors is a SPA. I could trim the article down to a stub, but even the stub would still read like a press release. And I don't understand what the company does, so it would be difficult for me to rewrite the lead section. Unless someone fixes the lead section before this AfD ends, please slow-delete per CSD G11.]

—Unforgettableid (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep I found the same results as nominator in a search: namely, just press releases at Google News and literally nothing at Google News Archive. However, the article itself contains links to significant coverage from Forbes, TechCrunch, and InfoWorld among others. I don't know how to explain the discrepancy, but I think the supplied coverage may be enough to pass WP:CORP. The article does need trimming to remove the excess detail about the corporate officers and the boosterish tone of the product description, but those are article issues unrelated to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN. Thank you for contributing. In response to your words, I've put forth an additional argument above. Does this convince you to change your vote? :) Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can make the article more acceptable. I'll give it a try later today when I have more time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the SPA and promo issues, the company does have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Article should be trimmed to remove promo content, but that is outside of the scope of afd. Dialectric (talk) 12:34, 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) 01:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have trimmed the article by about a third, eliminating the autobiographical and promotional aspects and (hopefully) making the lead a little more understandable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 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. Tone 16:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heathcliff H. Weissman

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

This "lesser-known German philosopher, sociologist and psychologist" is, in fact, so little known that I couldn't find anything on him - Google, VIAF, and WorldCat searches yielded zero results. The same accounts for the journal he allegedly "wrote", "Der Konflikt der Klasse". Also note that, while "Heathcliff" obviously isn't a regular German name, his middle name "Heinsburg" belongs to the "fake-German" category of names. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:03, 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 10:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since no evidence that this person existed has been provided there is a clear case for delete. Possibly a hoax. Creator is an spa. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I too am finding nothing on this person, even with wide search criteria, so agree with User:Xxanthippe that a potentially misleading article is best deleted in the absence of evidence. AllyD (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:HOAX. --Ben Ben (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too see problems with this article. The name doesn't make sense in light of modern German naming laws, which require the name to be officially approved - I'm not sure what the law was in 1887 however. Meanwhile, we have a predominantly Jewish surname Weissman, and yet no mention of what happened to him after 1933 when the Nazis came to power. Presumably he would have either escaped abroad early after being fired for being Jewish, or have been caught up in the holocaust. Just doesn't make sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. This does not appear to be a legitimate person. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suggest the possibility of sanctions against article creator (after he has had his say, of course). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xshellz

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

A previous article on this firm was deleted following AfD on 23 October 2013, but this article has now been created by a new editor. Apparently the text is insufficiently similar to the previous to meet WP:CSD G4. Neither of the two online resources that are offered as references appears to me to be a significant award. My view - as per the October AfD - is that there is a lack of evidence that this firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH, hence here we are back at AfD just a month after the previous. AllyD (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G4. I strongly disagree with the declining admin: [23] whatever text (I don't see it) was there in the previous version, the concerns about promotional nature and total lack of secondary sources haven't been addressed in this version. Articles once deleted at regular AfD should be held to higher standards than first submissions, because the due diligence in searching sources has been done before. No such user (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at whatever speed you need. Not notable without any independent sources. If they ever grow large enough to be covered, that would be the time to add an article. Far too many three-person-and-a-web-site companies for an article on each one. W Nowicki (talk) 18:36, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger (company)

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

A Google News Archive search for { "Schrödinger LLC" } turns up just seven hits, including two pieces of mere local news coverage published in the Portland Business Journal. —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding quite a bit of coverage (excluding Erwin Schrodinger) of the company's operations, investments by Gates, purchase of another firm in the field, etc. It's not HUGE notability, but the coverage seems to me to be quite substantial. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those hits are unconnected with Schrödinger LLC. Some are connected with the company, but does even a single one of them include significant coverage? We normally require, IIRC, a bare minimum of two references which include significant coverage. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing "quite a bit" of significant coverage myself about Schrödinger LLC. There is one very lengthy article in the weekly Portland Business Journal (Schrödinger are HQ'd in Oregon) and that seems to be it. The only claim to any notability is in relation to Bill Gates' investment and the other coverage is tiny, or about Gates. WP:NCORP requires some evidence of general news coverage and I'm not seeing any of that at all. Sionk (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in part for the reasons given by Candleabracadabra, but also because its products are widely used in the pharmaceutical industry and by drug design scientists both in industry and academia. There must be hundreds of links to their products in the scientific literature. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even the sources you can access via the nominator's link show minimal notability. Click through the links and you see one PBJ "story" is one of their non-stories, but it provided a link to the Puget Sound Biz Journal story which then provides a link to the WSJ story. I'm pretty sure the WSJ is considered a national source, and both the PBJ and Seattle version are more of a regional source, not local (local is truly meant to be the small town newspaper, not publications covering major metro areas). Throw in the other sources from Candleabracadabra, plus items such as the Seattle PI, The Oregonian, offline sources (Bell, J. (2010). Gates bets $10M on Schrödinger. Oregon Business Magazine, 33(6), 46.), more paywall sources (Exploring medicine's molecular frontiers: These companies could make a difference to human health and Oregon's economy. Suzanne Stevens. Oregon Business. 25.2 (Feb. 2002) p25 - 2 paragraphs on the company) and it passes the GNG bar. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Wall Street Journal is national.
I just investigated and discovered that a newspaper covering a major metropolitan area is indeed "regional". I have now edited WP:CORP to reflect this. (Diff.) Thank you for pointing it out to me.
The Seattle PI article you mention is just a routine funding announcement and fails SIGCOV. The Oregonian article is also a funding announcement; I don't think it's enough to base a Wikipedia article off of. Do there exist two sources which you yourself have viewed and which include SIGCOV of Schrödinger?

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while you may not consider those articles to be signifcant coverage because you consider them to be "a routine funding announcement", I do. Did it get more press because of the investor? Yep, sure did. Does that matter? No it does not. The fact is, the press took note of the company because of Billy's money, but they still took note (and we are talking about mainstream press, not some online only outlet with three readers dedicated to investments in this field). Since the press took note, they are notable (a derivative of note). Similar to how criminals become notable, not because they did anything great, it's just the press took note of them. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:53, 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) 01:11, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the RS coverage discussed above, there is also this Nature.com column: [24] Notability is established for this company.Dialectric (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the RS found above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:25, 13 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. JodyB_talk 12:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Davis (actor)

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

Unsourced BLP. No significant coverage found. Has had a string of acting roles, but none of them seem to qualify as 'major' and in most cases he appears well down the cast list. Michig (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Regarding sources, most of it comes from his IMDb page. Not sure how reliable that is for Wikipedia, but there's that. Thief12 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP If the main problem was the lack of sources, I added a source that confirms how he got into acting business. The last part of the article is about his credits, which can be confirmed in IMDb. The only part that's still "unsourced" is the part about his childhood, but like I said above, it's taken from IMDb. If the problem is how notable he is, I don't know how we should weight that. He's had a couple of recurring roles in notable shows, so I think that's more than enough. Thief12 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that by Wikipedia standards (WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR) he isn't notable. He doesn't appear to have had any major roles and he has received hardly any coverage. IMDB is not regarded as a reliable source. --Michig (talk) 06:36, 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) 01:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage either, apart from the source that's been added to the article. But one source does not equal notability. Who know, this may be a "Not yet" rather than a "Never". Moswento ^talky 11:37, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's an interview by Twitch Film about The Last Lovecraft, in which he starred. Besides that, there's little to be found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (1) The interview cited by NinjaRobotPirate calls the subject a "Star". (2) He's not had any starring roles, but has had recurring supporting roles in three popular TV series. In the past, we have kept such actors. In fact, if we didn't, many a character actor would have to be deleted, for consistency's sake. Not that I'm a hobgoblin. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 18 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) 01:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Dajani

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

BLP that has been unsourced for six and a half years. No significant coverage found. The only claim of notability in the article is writing a 'popular novel'. Michig (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a Romantic Times Online review of her first novel, apparently also reviewed in "Library Journal", but I am not finding anything to meet the WP:AUTHOR criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete In addition to Romantic Times and Library Journal, there is Publishers Weekly, Publishers Weekly, Booklist. That's 5 reviews. Not bad, but there are no opinion reviews in newspapers, just trade summary reviews, and no GNG coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Maxwell Garvie

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

No "historic significance [is] indicated by persistent coverage of the event" – WP:CRIME Technopat (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete By coincidence, I had just been reading the 5 pages in Kenneth Roy's new book that relate to this trial when this article appeared at WP:NPP; hence the reference. As to whether its recollection in that book meets WP:PERSISTENCE and whether the murder and trial were of lasting significance, I tend to think not. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A much better search term is simply Maxwell Garvie which turns up quite a few references to the case, as in this one in the Daily Record. Persistent coverage there is, in the tabloid 'true crime' category, but I am still inclined to delete. There is nothing in the mere facts of the case to make it stand out from many other killings around the world every year, and I see nothing in the continuing coverage to suggest that it has passed into the popular culture or influenced the law otherwise. --AJHingston (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The case generated quite a lot of publicity in Scotland at the time, and it has received the occasional mention over they years. If there are 5 pages about it in a recently published book this is an argument against deletion. I think the test is whether a case has generated persistent coverage, not judgements about the type of coverage. PatGallacher (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitly one of the most infamous cases in scotlands history. But needs an expansion etc. Basic WP:GNG covers this.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching for Maxwell Garvie on Google Books gave me several book sources [25] [26] And if there are five pages focusing on it in a new book? That just proves the notability. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article certainly has significant coverage. However, it needs to be expanded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The Scotsman assessment quoted in line 1 is sufficient cause to keep it. It certainly needs expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's attracted continuing press and media interest over more than 40 years up to the present day, meeting WP:PERSISTENCE.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Article desperately needs expanding, but there's lots of sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne L. Wang

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

Unsourced BLP. Nothing here is a strong claim of notability and no significant coverage was found of the subject or his books, which appear on lulu.com suggesting they may be self-published. Article appears to have been created by someone with a close association with the subject. Michig (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:03, 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 delete. Tone 16:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pure NRG Fx

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

Non-notable product, Google News turns up empty. Referenced only to the product's web site. Created by a paid advocacy account, see [35]. MER-C 08:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Taking into considerations other creations by th same user, clearly intended as promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero evidence for notability; only purpose is promotional. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 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) 01:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoDonPuchi Zero

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

There's little to no information about this game on the internet. GameFAQs, probably the biggest gaming database out there, has no entry for this game. Cave has no information about it on its website either. Jotamide (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS (at least in English that I can find). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna Mission Delhi

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

No Significance .... Alferdomach (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Delhi branch of Ramakrishna Mission. Notable alright. --Ekabhishek^talk 05:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable branch of a notable institution. --regentspark (comment) 14:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Branch of Ramakrishna Mission and it also involved in with CBSE. CBSE ropes in Ramakrishna Mission to help with 'value education in a training program for CBSE students.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per criteria WP:CSD#G11 as blatant spam and WP:CSD#G13 as most, if not all, of the content was copied verbatim from the corporate website. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NExT Training

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

Promotional .... Alferdomach (talk) 07:09, 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.

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ero Shocker

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

No significance ... Alferdomach (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of significance. Could be speedied under A7. --Michig (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 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.

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 16:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Culp

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

May not be interesting, or unusual enough for inclusion. I'm not able to locate significant independent coverage or sources. Scottyoak2 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for his baseball career.... unsure about his career as a writer of tech handbooks... but article would need more substantive sourcing for it to meet GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsure about the baseball, he has local coverage.[36][37] but I am sure the books don't pass WP:NBOOK and thus fails WP:AUTHOR. The announcement that the next book will be published on exactly December 29, 2017 is a WP:CRYSTAL record for longest book release date. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet either WP:NBASEBALL or WP:AUTHOR. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBASEBALL....William 12:04, 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. (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

AfDs for this article:

(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. (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"[38] and his work has been widely reported over a number of years [39][40][41] and he's been called to advise the Scottish Parliament [42]. 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: [43] [44]. 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. 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,[45][46][47][48] and there are also other sources now discussing this topic, including sources examining the top prospects for this draft.[49] 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 [50] 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

AfDs for this article:

(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: [51], [52], [53], [54]. 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,[55] 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 [56] nd Southern Illinoisan [57] 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 ([58]) 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 ([59]). 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

AfDs for this article:

(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. [60], [61], [62], [63]. 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 [64], 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 [65], 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.[66] Some updated history here.[67] 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. [68] 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 [69] 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[70], is produced by a company that does a mix of legit and vanity publishing[71], 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, [72] 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 [73]. 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 [74]). 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 [75]. 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 [76] and another link to a list of players who played in the tournament [77]. 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: [78]. 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.[79] 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,[80] 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.[81][82] -- 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, [83] 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 92: / Line 92: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco Butto (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HeavyWeight Yoga}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin Achenbaum}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin Achenbaum}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Hosking}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Evans, Sr.}}<!--Relisted-->