Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 29: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:05, 6 November 2014

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 October	30 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Mansion

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

There is no evidence that this building exists or that the gruesome events described within the article ever happened. I performed a thorough search and failed to find any sources to verify the contents of this article, so I suspect it does not meet WP:GNG or worse, could be a hoax. Altamel (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:V. No evidence found that the place or the events there are real. The article claims extensive news media coverage but no trace found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - Lack of reliable sources. I was unable to find any sources to support this article. - Taketa (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to support the claims. - Takeaway (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probably Halloween prank. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe some topics have mostly offline sources but if this existed there would be at least mentions of this in g-books or newspapers. Can't find anything. --Oakshade (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sentinels of the Multiverse The Video Game. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sentinels of the Multiverse

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

Not sure if this board game is notable per Wikipedia standards. Natg 19 (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming that I can't find enough, it might actually be best to merge this with Sentinels of the Multiverse The Video Game, which does pass notability guidelines as a whole due to it having multiple critical reviews on Metacritic. That article is relatively light, so if all else fails then a merge will solve problems of notability as a whole for the main article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge. It seems really hard to establish notability/verifiability for designer board games, even a popular one -- because almost all the news, reviews, and awards appear on one collaborative site, BoardGameGeek. But it is verifiable from video game critics that the Sentinels of the Multiverse franchise is a real thing. I wouldn't mind one article to describe both the board game and the video game. rspεεr (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Absolutely, this seems like a product created as part of the video game and certainly hasn't reached notability for its own article. EBY (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ...No, it's the other way around. The board game was created in 2011, the video game in 2014. (And this is the kind of thing people would like to find out by looking it up on Wikipedia.) rspεεr (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are absolutely right. I took several minutes and surfed around and realized the board game spawned the video game - the video game just sucks up the first hits for whatever reason. Digging back, I found several reviews of the board game and its notability (http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/review-sentinels-multiverse/) and (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/12512-Sentinels-of-the-Multiverse-The-Video-Game-Review especially). Still say Merge but the video game should be merged under the board game. EBY (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sentinels of the Multiverse The Video Game as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per suggestion above.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Purple (lubricant manufacturer)

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

No evidence of any notability. Ref appears to be a press release. No independent reliable refs despite article having existed since 2008. Fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added sources and basic financial information. Large enough company, 25.000 outlets, $100 million net income yearly, and a value in 2012 of $330 million. Significant coverage in national newsmedia. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source cited in the article, and Royal Purple does not have 25,000 outlets, it is SOLD in 25,000—which for a motor oil is not that impressive.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is sold for 100 million dollars a year, which for a motor oil is impressive. Moreover, there is significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. With a few Highbeam searches I found about 200 news articles that mention this company. Taketa (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Popular Mechanics calls it a "boutique synthetic lubricant manufacturer" and I found several notable cites. EBY (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "boutique" kind of contributes to it being deleted. It sounds niche and minor.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Calumet Lubricants, the company that purchased it. Otherwise, delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please give arguments. The nominator stated that he was missing references. I have added them. You stated that the number of outlets is not impressive and that the name boutique is a reason. Are the references not enough to meet WP:GNG in your opinion? NBC, CBS, Reuters, popular mechanics, Chicago Tribune, Las Vegas Sun etc. - Taketa (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your arguments, changing to keep.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm withdrawing my nomination of this article in light of Mark viking's advice. (non-admin closure) --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curve shortening flow

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

I think this should be a redirect to mean curvature flow. The curve shortening flow is just the special case of the MCF where the manifold is one-dimensional, and I am not aware of a lot of research dealing specifically with this case - usually it is used as an introductory example for the MCF. The statement that it will always develop a singularity is also wrong - this holds only in the compact case. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can I just boldly do that and withdraw this AfD, or is it inappropriate to turn someone else's article into a redirect? --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When deciding whether to list at AfD, it is best to follow WP:BEFORE to check notability of the topic. In this case, the topic gets 1,710 hits in Google books and 937 hits in GScholar. Here is a book chapter on curve shortening flow in image processing, a chapter on curve shortening flow in robotic path planning, and an entire book on the curve shortening problem. It seems like a notable topic. Notability in itself doesn't necessarily prevent a merger into a parent article until a proper article can be written. But deletion, as in no article should be written on this topic, is the wrong way to proceed. --Mark viking (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 overall discussion herein has sufficiently countered the nomination with guideline-based rationales that the subject meets WP:GNG. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Widlansky

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

There are a lot of words in this article, but 95% of them amount to fluff and the rest don't do much to establish notability. He plays for the Somerset Patriots - independent minor league team, not major league, so that fails WP:BASE/N. He won a college batting title - of note, but not notable enough to merit an article. Set a school a record for batting average, same. Was named a college conference player of the year, same. Perhaps the most notable thing he ever accomplished in his career is he was named an All-American, but even that in itself isn't entirely notable nor does it establish 'inherent notability' as far as I know.

Let's keep going: He was an All-Star in the low- and mid- level minor leagues? Not notable. He was a low-level player of the week a handful of times? Not notable. He was a low-level minor league player of the month once? Not notable. He played in the Australian Baseball League? That would have been notable two years ago, but it fails WP:BASE/N now. He played for a qualifying team for the WBC? Well, he didn't actually play in the WBC, so that's not notable (and please don't argue that playing in a qualifying round is somehow equivalent to actually playing in the real tournament - we don't say a guy played in the World Series when all he did was reach the 'qualifying rounds' of the Division and Championship Series').

He reached Triple-A twice? So did lots of guys without articles. He won some high school accolades? Lots of people win those. Not notable. Wow, the more I read the article, the more I see someone was REALLY desperate to glean notability from and for an otherwise not notable person. He broke a minor league team's record for RBI in a month...that's mentioned in the article...and that barely qualifies as trivia, let alone notability. He was named MVP among a select group of players by some publication no one has ever heard of? Not notable. Just as the article is a lot of words but no substance, the same goes with the list of references. A lot of links but nothing too meaningful. It's all WP:ROUTINE. I really can't believe this article has survived three rounds of AfDs. Lots of words != notability, nor does listing every little trivial thing someone has accomplished. Alex (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...oh Robbie again.. I nominated him for deletion twice before and lost both times primarily thanks to User:Epeefleche's determination to keep articles on every Jewish athlete ever.... sigh... I'm not gonna vote on this right now though... will see what the community reaction is this time. Spanneraol (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a lot of words in this nomination, but 95% of them amount to fluff and the rest don't do much to establish lack of notability. This is the 3rd time this is being nominated within the past 12 months -- the other times it was closed a Keep and a No-Consensus (with the split !vote consisting of 4 Keep !votes, 1 Delete !vote, the nomination, and 1 neutral !vote; defaulting to Keep). Nothing new from the last AfD. Notability is not temporary.

There is still significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and the article is therefore presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article per wp:GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."). So since GNG is met, WP:BASE/N is irrelevant; it need not even be considered . Beyond that, the starkest problem w/the nomination is that it focuses on each factor independently, rather than all together. And beyond meeting GNG, the topic of the article won the Sun Belt Conference batting title, set a school-record at his university for batting average, was Player of the Year in his Conference, was an All American, set the Aberdeen IronBirds team record for RBIs in a single month, was a NY Penn League All Star, was a mid-season Eastern League All Star, won the Carolina League batting title, played for a national team (Israel; in the World Baseball Classic qualifying round, which is run by the World Baseball Classic), also played in the Australian Baseball League ... all of which were the reason he received significant coverage in many independent reliable sources in more than one country, some being articles devoted entirely to him or largely to him, satisfying GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alex, his accomplishments don't make him notable. His coverage in multiple independent sources makes him notable. Targeted searches of the Sun Sentinel ([1][2][3][4][5][6]) and MASN ([7][8][9][10][11]) plus what is already in the article (some of which are in-depth, others are complimentary) suffices. I was the "neutral" vote Epeefleche mentioned from the last AfD. I didn't do the due diligence, so I didn't form an opinion. Now that I've spent some time searching, I'm convinced. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that's a flaw in the guidelines. No one has been able to identify any signs of actual nobility -- he hasn't done anything meaningful -- just that his name has been mentioned a lot. He's notable by technicality, not by actuality. Alex (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is core to wikipedia's notability rule. Wikipedia covers a topic if the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's not a flaw. It's a core wikipedia notability concept. You are confusing "Wikipedia notability" with "fame." As Wikipedia:Notability states: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity...." And Wikipedia:Notability's first-mentioned test for notability? GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to anything specific about Widlansky's career that is notable, outside the number of links he appears in? Alex (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in GNG does it say that any event in a person's life makes them notable. That's for notability guidelines, like NSPORTS. GNG is about coverage: if a person has it, then they're notable. If they don't, they don't. It's up to us to form consensus on whether or not the subject has enough coverage to merit an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex - you don't seem to be reading the comments here and the diffs supplied. Please consider the following, as well. From the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (emphasis supplied).

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline.....

and ...

Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards? A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.

Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG, which is our primary standard of notability, regardless of whether his accomplishments meet any special notability criteria. Rlendog (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the surface, much of the article content might as well be from someone's diary, it seems so trivial, but I don't know anything about the subject of baseball and maybe it is important that someone has been "promoted to the Class AA" and so on. So I'm not going to vote. However, the much quoted "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" is used to justify many a AfD keep vote for blp articles. But does it mean what those who use it think it means? I think that it does not mean the article should be automatically kept. "Presumed" means, in effect, "presumed innocent", as in every person at the start of a trial is presumed innocent. It does not mean the person (or article) is innocent, or will be found innocent. On Wikipedia the AfD discussion decides on the guilt or innocence. If a blp article completely lacks a presumed innocent status (i.e., it has no reliable sources that are independent of the subject) then it could be deleted without an AfD. Having "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" just allows it to go to an AfD rather than a speedy delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first sentence of the AfD sums it up. There isn't a single thing in the article that's actually notable from a Wikipedia standpoint. This would make a great page at Baseball-Reference Bullpen, but that site has a different mission than this one. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There isn't a single thing in the article that's actually notable from a Wikipedia standpoint..." Except significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, which is our gold standard for notability, regardless of one's views of a subject's baseball accomplishments. Rlendog (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Except significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, which is our gold standard for notability" - is it really? Is it not just the minimum standard, the assumption of notability, an assumption which prevents automatic deletion but which is required to be tested against other standards and which does not carry with it the assumption of automatic keep. But the guidance is vague on what assumption of notability actually means. It would save a lot of time in AfD discussions if the guidance were clarified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." What other standards are you suggesting need to be tested against once a subject meets this notabiity standard? That is not to sayd that there couldn't be reasons a subject that meets the notability presumption should be deleted or merged (e.g., WP:COATRACK), but that would rarely if ever be a case of not being "actually notable from a Wikipedia standpoint." Rlendog (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets notability criteria. Comments suggest that discussion on the criteria may be worthwhile (elsewhere), but as they stand they have been met.Becky Sayles (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Abbas' position on terror

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

Major NPOV concern about a living person. Also seems to be largely based on synthesis. Useful information should be merged into Mahmoud Abbas, but I think most of this has to go. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, although I'm sorry you nominated this article for deletion. This is my first Wikipedia article, and I tried to make it abide by Wikipedia guidelines. In particular, I strove to show both sides of an old but ongoing controversy, citing reputable sources (mostly major news outlets) and video clips which were indicative of the two sides of the issue. I considered merging the article into the main Mahmoud Abbas biography article, but thought that it would be a diversion from the main thrust of that article (which is already very long). Perhaps a better idea would be to include a link from the main Mahmoud Abbas biography article to this article.

I would be happy to hear any additional feedback you have. User:DMG-Gremlin — Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 29 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New comment added Oct 30, 2014 by User:DMG-Gremlin: Sammy1339, Regarding the substance of your comments... 1 - re placing the essence of the article I wrote on the main Abbas page, I'd be happy to wait a few more days and see if anyone else has a response. My sense is that it should remain on a separate page for the reasons I wrote before, but I'd bow to consensus to the contrary.

2 - as you noted, politicians' views on terrorism is a contentious issue. It has been broadly discussed in many forums. I've been considering building up the present Abbas article to include additional politicians. If I were to do that, would you think that it should be its own page, because it is its own topic, or that an addition should be made to the main page for each politician?

3 - per your suggestion, I will edit the article to add a source that explicitly discusses Abbas's views in general or the controversy over them, so that it will not appear that the article collects disparate pieces of information in order to express something that hasn't been said elsewhere.

    Best,
    -- DMG-Gremlin (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)User:DMG-Gremlin[reply]

Delete Doesn't stand up on it's own. I don't believe what appears to be an article about an opinion held by a person belongs on Wikipedia unless it is substantive independent coverage and I don't believe this passes that test. Move any useful material into the article on the person concerned. BritainD (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BritainD,

I guess that's two votes (you and Sammy) for integrating relevant portions of this material into the main article. I'll wait a few more days and see if there's any additional feedback, and then edit as appropriate.

If I may ask, you wrote above: "I don't believe what appears to be an article about an opinion held by a person belongs on Wikipedia unless it is substantive independent coverage and I don't believe this passes that test." What do you think of my idea #2 above, of editing the current page so that the topic is more general, namely the positions of various leaders / politicians regarding terror? It seems to be the case regarding any given leader that there is plenty that has been said by various researchers, but no one has yet assembled this into a single article. (Instead, a curious reader needs to hunt and peck to find the relevant info.)

Separately, for anyone who is reading this, Sammy1339 posted the following to me regarding this topic, and approved of my posting it here: I hope you won't take it as a criticism of your work - I think it's actually a fair and reasonable article and your selection of topics makes sense. The two problems with it are first of all that it is a very contentious topic that for the sake of fairness belongs in the main article where everyone can see and debate it; secondly, there's no source that explicitly discusses Abbas's views in general or the controversy over them. According to WP:SYNTH, editors are not allowed to collect disparate pieces of information in order to express something that hasn't been said elsewhere. However I think that some of what you wrote is valuable and could be incorporated into the Mahmoud Abbas page. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

DMG-Gremlin

Delete as POV fork of Mahmoud Abbas . Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stuartyeates. Although what Sammy1339 and BritainD wrote above seems reasonable (and I look forward to their response to my questions), I think that my article really isn't a POV fork. As per the content forking article: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."

Also, the content forking article says: "The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article."

As I think is clear from the Mahmoud Abbas' position on terror article, I did present both sides, giving a bunch of examples for each side. Practical next steps to address your concerns: (1) would it help if I added more examples on either side of the controversy? There are a large number of reputable sources showing both sides. (2) would it help if I edited the Mahmoud Abbas article to include a "neutral summary of the split article" as suggested on the content forking page? (3) would it help if (as I suggested above) I build up the present "Abbas position" article to include additional politicians. If I were to do that, would you think that it should be its own page, because it is its own topic, or that an addition should be made to the main page for each politician?

Thanks. DMG-Gremlin (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)DMG-Gremlin[reply]

Delete Anything worthwhile can go in the main article. GoldenRing (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I was all set to close this as "no consensus" but then started looking into the copyright problems noted by John Nagle and Stuartyeates in the discussion. The verbatim copying in the article, both from cited sources and from the sites noted below, is both pervasive and foundational. It cannot be eliminated without a complete rewrite, and a merger of this information in its current state to any other article would just spread the problem. Anyone is welcome to try to create a fresh article on the topic (or to include information about the topic elsewhere) without all the copy/paste from other Web sites, but this article cannot be allowed to stand in its current state. Deor (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Carbon Measurement Initiative

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

publicity for a hotel PR effort; no clear notability DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ keep 3. [12], [13], [14], [15]. ~~Not a "PR effort,"~~ thoroughly notable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sammy1339: It was written by a paid editor, and is clearly a PR effort. Number 5 7 14:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I just looked at the author's contributions. Unbelievable. How on earth has this person not been blocked already? --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~Merge per below. Much of the text of the article comes from this FAQ: [16]. Arguably, it's a copyvio. I'm looking at this because that editor came up on WP:AN/I. Some of that editor's articles are OK, and some are on non-notable subjects. This seems to be one of the latter. John Nagle (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-copyvio, encyclopedic content (if there's any left) into World Travel and Tourism Council. Miniapolis 23:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge proposal. If this is an activity of that council, put it in there. John Nagle (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's pure non-neutral PR cruft. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyright infringement of https://membres.tourisme-montreal.org/fichiers/Docs/Hotel%20Carbon%20Measurement%20Initiative%20Methodology%20FINAL.pdf Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the comments to merge or delete as copyright infringement. The methodology was developed by 2 industry bodies (WTTC and ITP) so it wouldn't be right to merge with the WTTC page. The Tourism Montreal organisation does not have any copyright over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.180.192.10 (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep This appears a credible topic and its notability is distinct from both hotels and from carbon equivalency (although overlapping both). As such, we should keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Menopause. Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Male and Female Reproductive Aging

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

This was proposed for an A10 CSD (duplicates existing topic) but rejected. Although it is a plausible topic, this article contains no unique and non-trivial information. The only statement about male reproductive aging is "Male fertility often continues through adult life, although it also diminishes with age," and this is unreferenced, and since the article appears to be exclusively about humans as well, there is really nothing here that cannot be found in menopause. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No useful content as distinct from menopause. Basie (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to menopause. Has potential for a quality improvement project and a proper article at some point in the future. — Cirt (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to menopause. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect o menopause per suggestion above.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Nominator has been blocked for impersonation and therefore this AfD is in prima facie bad faith. This, of course, does not prejudice any future good faith nominations. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LG_Williams

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

WP:FAILN: LG Williams is ranked below 50000 on artfacts database. WP:SELFPUB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baronosuna (talk • contribs) 16:20, October 29, 2014‎ (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand this deletion rationale. The article should be deleted because of the topic's ranking on some external site? freshacconci talk to me 10:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Editors, clearly you should be not taken in by this repeated attempt at this latest attempt at vandalism.

Baronosuna is a sole purpose Vandal and Sockpuppet. In fact, the new and sole purpose user's name itself points directly to the ruse: "Baron Osuna" is the artist's friend and gallerist, Baron Osuna -- see Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/baron.osuna. Obviously, a gallerist would not delete information from a friend and associate; only someone with a vendetta would create such a blatant ruse.

Moreover, the fraudulent use of a living persons name in Wikipedia, unbeknownst to them and without their consent and authorization, should not go unpunished.

This page is under constant and repeated attempts at vandalism. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this vandal and how we can remove deletion from this page. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xxxartxxx A sockpuppet of whom? What is the master account? Obviously the account looks suspicious--brand new users don't typically jump right into AfDs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cyphoidbomb, thank you for your quick reply. The vandal's user name betrays the ruse: Baronosuna or rather, Baron Osuna. In other words, it is a blatent play on words or a joke. Baron Osuna is LG Williams's art gallerist. The wiki user knows this and is laughing at all the wiki commotion at the obvious joke! The LG Williams wiki page should be placed under protection. If you look at the edit history, this is just the latest attempt whereby "brand new user jump right into AfDs." Moreover, the fraudulent use of a living persons name in Wikipedia, unbeknownst to them and without their consent and authorization, should not go unpunished. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your other points. A sockpuppet is a user who employs multiple accounts for some disruptive reason, typically for vandalism. If you think this is a sockpuppet (i.e. a previously disruptive user returning to continue their disruption), it would be helpful to know who the sockmaster is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sole purpose User/Vandal Baronosuna account is currently blocked [17] --Xxxartxxx (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxartxxx (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the vandal's accounts has been blocked, can I remove the vandalism / damage caused by Baronosuna? --Xxxartxxx (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like any additions to the article by Baronosuna have been reverted. As for the nomination for deletion, deletion discussions last for 7 days. I don't know what the policy is, if any, about deletions nominated by editors later blocked. Normally these discussions are left to run their course. A non-administrator can close a discussion after the 7 days if consensus is clear but I'm not certain about this situation. It would be best to wait for an administrator to weigh in. Removing the AfD template yourself could get you blocked. As this AfD was launched in bad faith I can see the article being kept as there was no proper rationale given for deletion. Wait until others weigh in. freshacconci talk to me 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I would probably not remove the AfD yourself, Xxxartxxx. I've changed my reply to "Speedy keep for now" in the hope that we can get a quick resolution to this. I would, however, encourage you to beef up the article somewhat by properly establishing the subject's notability. The references are a mess, both in formatting and bulk, and we can't use articles written by Williams to establish his notability. We need either the general notability guideline to be met by providing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" or to clearly establish in the lead that he meets the criteria laid out at WP:ARTIST. And it probably wouldn't hurt to explain why he is notable on the article's talk page so we can avoid another AfD. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Nominating editor was blocked for impersonating a compatriot of the subject, and the user's deletion rationale was puzzling. Until such time as a cogent argument can be made for this article to be deleted, the article should be kept. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Water binding power of proteins

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

No apparent encyclopedic content, and some confusion about what the subject even is. Appears to be badly translated from a single French source. Sammy1339 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single source, poorly written article - The significance of the topic is not made clear, and the article lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It is poorly written and the title (waterbinding of proteins) does not seem to match the content (subjective meat quality). - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads like nonsense, even hoax. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not match current consensus in this field of chemistry. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written article that lacks the independent sources required by the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Srinivasa Ramanujan Institute of Technology. The consensus here is clearly in favor of merging anything salvageable to Srinivasa Ramanujan Institute of Technology. However, I would like to add a note that the latter article is also in dire need of some cleanup. Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sambasiva Reddy Aluru

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

No indication of WP:notability. No independent references in WP:reliable sources. His wife failing to get elected is not notable in itself and does nothing to establish his notability. Google searches only finding social media. noq (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is no matter which is promoting, I removed all the matter which I feel as promoted.. please do reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.63.223 (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not saying there is any spamming going on - but that there is nothing about him that makes his own encyclopaedia entry worthwhile. noq (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the page for the institution of the man (SRIT). There is no separate notability for him. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what do you feel is worth merging into that article? noq (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noq Certainly his qualifications and career info. I leave it to whoever is merging to decide what is appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment He is a public figure, he is in politics, he is well known in his area, many people want to know his biography, wikipedia is nothing but for knowing biography or life., — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.63.223 (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - your sources?. who is wanting to know about him? I cannot find anything on google showing anything about him other than a page on the institution web site and a handful of social media sites. For someone in the public eye there is a lack of on-line coverage which seems strange. noq (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing about him which suggests a Wikipedia page. I din't even think we should be wasting our energies here Shanky3286 14:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Srinivasa Ramanujan Institute of Technology. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Juby

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

Subject is part of the touring band of Mike + The Mechanics and co-wrote some songs which may be notable but I couldn't find any verifiability except some OR of the projects and little on subject himself. EBY (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McClellan

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

PROD declined by article author. Article has been written by subject himself; subject doesn't appear to be meet notability guidelines (lack of independent sources, with the biggest claim to fame being the creator of a new and also non-notable organization). Article is also written in a promotional tone in regards to the subject's organization (TheDeafSociety). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find 1 source but even that is not reliable. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Jaded-Eyes-Ryan-McClellan-ebook/dp/B0017L8BQQ Wrightie99 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG WP:RS WP:COI. A baby picture? --Jersey92 (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - Claims of notability are not supported by reliable sources. General lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. - Taketa (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:GNG. no reliable sources to back up claims. There should be reliable sources readily accessible on the web for such a recent organization. As an aside, in reference to !votes above, WP:COI and photos of the article subject at whatever stage of life are not good arguments at AfD. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Surmountable_problems —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood. Fails WP:GNG WP:RS should be sufficient to support deleting this. To explain further: There simply aren't WP:RS to support the claims of notability in the article. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides being an obvious autobiography, I don't see anything but social networking sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, more specifically WP:BIO, and even more specifically WP:ENT. And yes, it is also pretty close to having been speediable under G11. Wikipedia is is not for self-promotion. Valfontis (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DynGen Hunter

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

No evidence that this game is notable. The links provided are to download sites (via iTunes, Google Play, etc.), a link to a gaming website that has zero content, and a forum/profile page on another similar website that does not appear to meet WP:RS. I can find no substantive third-party information about this game. Kinu ^t/_c 18:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reliable sources (that I can find) that mention the game. If this is 'notable' surely every game ever made should have a Wikipedia page. Wrightie99 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2014 (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) 23:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any reliable source coverage of this game. Sam Walton (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - No indication why this is notable. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I did a Highbeam search which gave no results. A google search did not find any reliable sources. - Taketa (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing usable in WP:VG/RS Google custom search, and only around 100 Google hits total, none of which seem to be reliable sources. Probably too soon for an article. Can be recreated later when reviews show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable/independent sources, not notable. Becky Sayles (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Jameel

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

The article was nominated for deletion for a lack of reliable third-party sources in 2013. Since then significant amounts of unsourced content have been removed, but no additional sources have been provided. The Urdu article doesn't cite any, and my own search didn't turn up anything remotely useful either. Despite claims of fame I see no indication that the subject actually meets WP:BIO. Huon (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --Dmol (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the case for notability is weak. He has a lot of youtube clips and blogs mention him, but that's mainly it. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a typical case of lack of online online coverage of Pakistani topics). References were hard to find from the automatically tagged resources with the article title on top, but a manual search finds reliable sources both in book and Pakistani mainstream media. Duniya TV, a mainstream TV channel, rediff], [18], [19], book1, book2, book 3. Some other sources that I suspected to be potential mirrors of wikipedia, I have not listed. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see any problem with notability. A Google search shows numerous web-pages hosting his lectures that confirm his popularity. A typical search, as it appears, pathetically shows only audio- and video-hosting sites. But as noted above by User:TopGun, a customized search indeed yields good results. Hard-pressed by time, yet I'll try to add content permitted by sources. -AsceticRosé 15:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is quite notable as a scholar. More sources would be available in Urdu than in English, I'd say. Mar4d (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This analysis doesn't seem to be correct. If you search youtube or google you would find 100s of resources on Tariq jamil (It may come as Molana Tariq Jamil, Molana Tariq Jameel or other different spellings as the original name is in Arabic/ Urdu. On my website, http://www.australianislamiclibrary.org/urdu-bayan.html, Australian Islamic Library, i have gathered his 150 lectures. You can also see the public attending this. There is absolutely no doubt about Molana Tariq Jamil's fame. I haven't read the wiki article itself, but page is definitely worth standing. Regards,Nabeel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelsahab (talk • contribs) 03:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person is notable. Due to lack of online English resources, the content that poses threat to the person should be removed but the article should be kept. SAMI ^talk 18:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As said before issue of lack of online coverage of Pakistani related articles, The scholar himself is quite less media frenzy in terms of interviews etc but well known because of his sermons and has quite a fan following. Although may not be a criteria for notability but his page view stats of just last 90 days shows quite some views. ow@!s (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only looked at the discussion and article this morning, so I don't know what the article looked like before. As of now, it seems to be reliably sources to the extent that significant, worldwide coverage of the person is established. I am usually a deletionist on biographies of subcontinent figures, though in this case the language barrier could have been a cause of earlier doubt regarding notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Detonator Destroyer

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

No evidence that this is a notable piece of software. The claim of importance comes from the fact that it was downloaded a large number of times from a particular software download site. The linked "reviews" are also simply links to similar download sites. I see no evidence of substantive third-party coverage in reliable sources. Kinu ^t/_c 18:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. Couldn't find any mention in a reliable source, or even anything other than discussion forums and download sites, despite the claim that it's widely used. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 19:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral I have found 1 source that has an article on this subject http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/detonator-destroyer.html however I am not sure it is the most notable subject as it is based on software for a specialized situation in the late 1990's. Wrightie99 (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly consider that an article; it appears to be just another product description at a download site. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything but download links. Part of the problem is that a Windows XP version was apparently never released, so it was never relevant during the time at which most reviews would have been written. Any reviews that existed have probably gone dead. I tried checking Google Books for archived magazine reviews, but there was nothing there. If any coverage in reliable sources is found, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NinjaRobotPirate.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice DD was a very popular piece of software; I remember using it myself. Reliable sources are definitely out there in printed computer magazines from ca. 2002; someone just needs to find them, just as NinjaRobotPirate says. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical translation

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

Does not appear to be a subject notable enough for a stand-alone article. Might be appropriate for a redirect, but I'm not sure to which. I would say it's a common enough phenomenon to justify a merge except that there's no properly sourced content to merge. I'm nominating this and two other articles (METRiQ and regulatory translation) created by a user whose edits, as indicated by the language used in the articles and by sourcing entirely to for-profit translation organizations/sites, suggests WP:PROMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest redirecting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_interpretation#Medical maybe? 174.102.150.189 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No rationale for deletion given. How can such a large topic not be notable? Why are you not nominating other similar topics like legal translation as well? If you consider the link to be promotional, simply remove the link. We shouldn't delete entire articles because they have one commercial link.--^Melody _Lavender 11:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (??) Several rationales to choose from: notability, appropriateness for a stand-alone article, and pervasive promotionalism. ... Lots of large topics are not notable because of a number of reasons: better covered in another topic, there's not enough to be said about them that isn't already said in another article, they're too vague, and, most commonly, even though it's a big topic not enough sources exist talking about it specifically to write an encyclopedic article without synthesizing or duplicating material. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The question is whether there are sufficient sources about this very subject to merit an article. If yes, is there enough to say about it in those sources such that it merits a stand-alone article without duplicating material elsewhere. If so, then is it sufficiently promotional that it would be better to WP:NUKEANDPAVE. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are throwing catch phrases and not-even-policies (essays) at us, without giving any rationale that applies to this specific case. You should be telling us why you believe the topic is not notable and preferably give a source for that (for example: The New York Times quoting someone notable who says that there are only ten people in this industry.) If you want to merge the article, a WP:Merge discussion is more approporiate which you can initiate on the article's talkpage. As has already been mentioned in the post below: translation and interpretation are two different animals. There is no pervasive promotionalism in this article - it's actually a rather dull stub at this point that mentions little that could arguably need a footnote. There are only some basic definitions in the article. The potential for expansion is huge: there is a summary about the rules in the EU in the footnote, which can easily be researched and covered by a better reference. The reference is commercial, but it's not one of these bad cases with a link directly to an eShop, for example. Not to forget AMA or HIPAA, the American Act that applies to medical writing, transcription and translation probably has rules or conventions concerning this topic a s o. You could have easily entered the topic into google scholar and found out that there are thousands of results. --^Melody _Lavender 05:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Catch phrases? Not only are WP:N and WP:NOT not essays, but they're pretty central to how AfD discussions work. Notability is not just some subjective sense of what is important, it's a quasi-objective measure of importance developed by the community to defer decisions about what should be included to coverage in secondary sources. If those sources can be demonstrated, then it also talks about what's fit for a stand-alone article vs. being notable enough to include in another article on a related topic. What Wikipedia is NOT talks about all the things Wikipedia is, well, not, and therefore if an article falls into one of those categories in a decisive way, it's also a valid reason for deletion. The essays I did refer to are oft-cited extrapolations/articulations of policy/guideline nuance and have pretty substantial consensus for being invoked in AfD discussions, so writing them off as "just essays" without addressing the points they summarize is problematic. As far as the article not being promotional, did you look at any of the references/links? Everything this user has created links to commercial translation business pages and associated information sites intended to sell something (and these links were inserted into several other pages as well). That makes for a promotional article, being that it's only here to drive sales.
    - All that being said, I'm not under the illusion at this point that I'm changing your mind. I think what I understand to be the core of your argument could be most easily be presented (i.e. without encountering resistance by saying things like "no rationale for deletion given") with something like: "It's a major field for which more than enough sources exist to pass WP:GNG and the promotional character of the article can be fixed so that WP:NUKEANDPAVE isn't necessary." I don't agree, and may ask you to produce some of those sources, but at least we can avoid the relatively meta parts of the argument. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Medical translation is a major field and profession worldwide. It shouldn't be merged into the article on interpretation because it's something different (written) versus oral (interpretation). It's a shame the article isn't better developed, but it should not be deleted.–Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This does seem to satisfy GNG. There seem to be entire books about it in GBooks. James500 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Medical translation is to translation as figure skating is to sports. Just as James500 said, entire books have been written on the subject. The nominator clearly failed to exercise due diligence when nominating the article for deletion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

METRiQ

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

Non-notable software product (fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:GNG). I'm nominating this and two other articles (Medical translation and regulatory translation) created by a user whose edits, as indicated by the language used and sourcing entirely to for-profit translation organizations, suggests WP:PROMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. With no claim of importance, it seems to meet CSD A7. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC). Except of course in that it is software, which isn't covered under A7 at all. 08:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found mention of several pieces of software on a Books search, but nothing related to translation projects. A regular Google search turns up many small companies called Metriq, but none of them are related to this software. The company that makes it is mentioned here and here and here, but their software is not. Fails WP:GNG. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 08:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails to provide any reliable sources that show any sort of Notability. Searches are mostly showing press release and other first-party controlled content and are not showing that MMETRiQ is the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Appears to purely be WP:Promo.Stesmo (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though some half-hearted effort was made to conceal its promotional nature, the article is nothing but an advertisement for a firm to which medical professionals can outsource translation-related tasks. METRiQ is apparently what the company calls its custom web interface used for client–business interaction rather than actual translation software and as such it would need an extraordinary amount of independent coverage indeed to be eligible for its own Wikipedia article. Such coverage is non-existent and thus the article ought to be deleted. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Of note is that this discussion was closed as keep (by another user) on 21 October 2014 (diff), two weeks after the nomination was created. The initial close was contested at DRV, and this discussion was reopened on 29 October 2014, which has run for another week, totaling three weeks of open discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Murray (journalist)

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

Journalist who works for BBC Scotland and is an official of the National Union of Journalists. I don't see anything here to suggest he meets WP:GNG, he only gets quoted and mentioned occasioanlly in the press. Sionk (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is not just any old official of the National Union of Journalists, a fairly important organisation, but was president at one time, I would argue that this post is inherently notable, although I recognise the article could do with improvement. PatGallacher (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above (I'm assuming its ok to comment, as the debate has been re-listed). Remove this comment if I'm mistaken. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 17:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment, this was closed as keep as a NAC but I couldn't see any consensus here. Although it was listed at DRV I'm closing this as a straightforward adminsitrative action.Relisting in the hope that we get some more input. DRV often prompts a more rounded discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll comment then, considering my silence seems to have been taken as agreement with the 'keep' vote. I was unaware that Murray was breifly President of the NUJ. Even so, I've recently been organising articles for General Secretaries and Presidents of British trade unions and, believe me, there are considerably fewer articles about Presidents. I tried but failed to find sufficient coverage about my own union president to write an article on her. Presidents largely perform a chair role and are generally much less in the limelight than General Secretaries. I disagree that Presidents of trade unions are inherently notable. Murray was President very recently indeed and, if there was significant press coverage about him, it would be readily available. There isn't any. Sionk (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 effective withdrawal by Ivanvector). Non-admin closure. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Stronge, 5th Baronet

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 5th Baronet

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

Completing nomination on behalf of Masterofdongs who marked the page with the AfD template and created a talk page with the comment "This article is non-notable and I think it should be deleted for that reason." However they did not complete the process. I am neutral. Ivanvector (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Twinkle decided to make this a "second" nomination. The "first" nomination is the original nominator's comment. I'm not going to try to clean that up because I'll probably just make more mess. Ivanvector (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. postdlf (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's just about notable: "Stronge was appointed High Sheriff of Tyrone in 1880 and High Sheriff of Armagh in 1885" He seems to be documented and referenced, so he might as well stay; it's not as though Wikipedia is running out of space. Giano (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in the FA Cup final, amongst other things. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable as a politician and notable as a footballer; article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose withdrawal - the user who nominated this has been blocked for violating the username policy, which seems procedurally to leave me as the nominator, and I haven't seen any reason to support deletion. I don't think we could close this under WP:EVADE, but it seems to be a snowball anyway, so how about we shut it down and the user can re-nominate if they decide to come back with a more appropriate username? Ivanvector (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible to me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shock site

I know that wikipedia is NOT censored. Please don't take this as an attack on shock sites themselves. I'm merely talking about wikipedia's article on shock sites. This article has not gotten anywhere in the way of reliable sources since its previous AfD and VfD. Andjam 23:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a relevant term and it can't be too difficult to acquire sources. JuJube 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I understand the rationale for deletion, but it's not sufficient. This term is a known entity and deserves its page within the pantheon of human knowledge. YechielMan 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JuJube and YechielMan, who both make persuasive arguments on this discussion. Good work, my friends! :) --164.107.223.217 00:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close until the article is unprotected. While protected, the AfD notice cannot be placed, nor can the nominator's concerns be addressed if possible. Maxa megalon 2000 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uncle G (talk · contribs) just added the notice.--Isotope23 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also added it to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection ^_^ Milto LOL pia 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article is now only semi-protected, b/c of the AfD. Mango juice^talk 19:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much of a pain in the ass as this article can be given the fact that it draws quite a few editors who want to spam their own favorite unattributed shock site into the article, it is a real concept and I think it has been fairly well established that at least some of the entries can be sourced. It is making headway... but if there was any site that should be exempted from WP:3RR when it comes to aggressively expunging non-notable additions like "Meatspin" and "Hai2u"... this is it. Still that isn't a reason to delete.--Isotope23 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per JuJube and Isotope23. This article had actually warned me about those disturbing things, especially when I came across that image of a man opening his anus. Maybe tag it with {{Unreferenced}}, or something similar. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well referenced, encyclopedic topic. I see no problem here, --Haemo 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations are not of reliable sources. Andjam 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes lets all stick our heads in the sand. — MichaelLinnear 01:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is not censored for articles about unprofessional and immature things, shock sites are en extremely important part of the internet, so enough of the pointless afds. If the article sucks, clean it up. It's not too hard. Milto LOL pia 02:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that wikipedia is not censored. I mentioned that in the nomitation for deletion. Andjam 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the only issue is sourcing, good. And that can be fixed. I'll bet you two dollars I can have this article at an acceptable level before this AFD closes, barring I don't commit suicide after finals week. Milto LOL pia 02:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're all taking the problems with the article a little lightly. I've looked for sources on this a LOT in the last year plus when I've been watching the article. Reliable sources on shock sites just don't exist. Even the use of the term "shock site" barely ever appears in anything remotely reliable. The OR tag has been on this article since October '06, but the top part of the text (which is really the only meat of the article) has been in that state for much longer than that. This is a notable phenomenon, I think... but notability does not imply inclusion without good sourcing, and the article has been like this for a long, long time without improvement. Mangojuice^talk 03:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are reliable sources out there, they're just not taken seriously by Wikipedians, who unfortunately don't realize that something doesn't have to be serious to be right. I wonder if I could find any dried up old mothers complaining about these sites, do you think those would be good sources for their existence? Milto LOL pia 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Neologisms, that'll give you an idea of the kind of sourcing we need; we need much more than someone confirming that these things exist. But no, I really don't think that a blog or personal web site (even of someone unlikely to lie) can be thought of as "reliable", even if we're trying to stretch. Many, many independent ones, sure, but then you're doing ambiguous original research. Mango juice^talk 11:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's mainly a list of "examples" that have no reliable sources calling them "shock sites". Without these sources, wikipedia could be called a "shock site" depending on the random definition of the day. This is more of a definition than and encylcopedia article. calling something a "shock site" is like calling something "gay". It's highly subjective, has no reliable sources and is potentially pejorative. Delete as unsalvagebale, unreferenced work that is non-encyclopedic. Send it to Wiktionary as a definition and let them deal with it. --Tbeatty 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ An article about shock sites, their history, the censorship they face and how they circumvent it has clearly it’s place on Wikipedia. However I feel like only the first part of the current version is relevant (before the ToC), it should not be a mere list of example (and because of SPAM problems, I think example shouldn’t include a link). Elimerl 09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Notice: I think I haven’t the required number of edit in order to be able to vote[reply]
Delete I changed my mind after reading Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Let’s wait more before having such an article. Elimerl 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Tbeatty and others. None of the support arguments are particularly convincing - the article currently lacks reliable sources, violating a couple of rather important "Double-yew-pee-colon" thingos. "It may have sources!" isn't convincing — someone needs to turn up with the goods (after a long time of sourcing stagnation, as Mangojuice says above), as it doesn't cut it at the moment-K@ngi e ^meep! 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can turn up some reliable sources. I think if they were out there, Mangojuice would have found them by now, he's worked pretty hard in researching this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a bit of expansion but not deletion --UNKNOWNFILE 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd also like you to see this section, where this page has been cited on an external website, saying "Lazy Guide to Net Culture: NSFW" (Scotsman.com, Internet, June 9, 2004) "There are many such unpleasant places on the web and you can find comprehensive details of them on the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia." This is another reason why I vote keep, because deleting it could ruin other articles. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's a red flag that this article (or rather, a long-gone past version of it) was the most reliable source on the subject at the time. Mangojuice^talk 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is the version of the Shock site article on the date the Scotsman article was published: [20]. Surely we should not be going back to that. Mango juice^talk 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that was in 2004, which was about 3 years ago. I'm sure there would be more sources now than there was before. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Find them. I've looked as hard as I can. Have you? Mango juice^talk 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AAA! --Efitu (Tlk Unc) 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per 164.107.223.217. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 15:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources. SakotGrimshine 17:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sites that aim to shock exist. Shock site is as good a description of the phenomena as any other. Concern that the article title may be a neologism are misplaced. Suggest a better title for the article? --Shoka 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "shock site" is the best recognized title for this phenomenon, moving it somewhere else would be using a term even less well established. Mango juice^talk 13:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "goatse" turns up 10 google news hits, indicating this is a topic of coverage. The term shows up in wired news, identifying Stile Project as one, and even in a court decision, over a shock site that had its domain pulled. The article needs to be refined to material that can be cited to sources, but the basic term and concept are not original. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Goatse.cx already has an article. Andjam 00:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As does Stile Project and Ogrish.com. I'm sure the category that encompasses them is also a notable genre of website. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy and I'm pretty sure everyone have witnessed or heard of a shock site. -ScotchMB 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has been speedy deleted as copyvio. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airtecture

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

Article is purely promotional info of a registered term by a German company, in other words, it is a proprietary concept. Fails notability, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:NOTNEO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - cut and pasted from http://www.tensinet.com/database/viewProject/3753.html. Lemnaminor (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Naim Mahyuddin

(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 article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:NFOOTY, as a player who doesn't seem to have appeared in any FIFA matches and hasn't played in a fully professional league. The Malaysia Premier League isn't listed at WP:FPL. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 19:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY - Highbeam search gave a single Malaysian national newspaper name mention. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Plays in the Malaysian premier league, which is not a fully professional league, and played at the World University Games, which is not a FIFA international tournament. - Taketa (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability failure. Becky Sayles (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11, spam. Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Oheneba Boachie-Adjei

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

This article tries to provide the appearance of notability where it does not actually exist. The only references are from the subjects own (non-notable) organization, FOCOS. Half the article is devoted to promotional material on FOCOS. Furthermore, there is probably a conflict of interest, as the article was written by user "orthofocos". ubiquity (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added three independent references. Article needs additional work, and apparent conflict of interest is a concern. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete NN advertisement written by his own company. A self-serving piece. Company account spamublocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pickup artist. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PUA Training

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/PUA Training

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

Most references are about Adam Lyons and not PUA Training itself. There appears to be lots of references but most references are self-references. Company is not notable. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to pickup artist. A classic example of citation overkill used to make a subject appear more notable than it is. Adam Lyons should be redirected too, but that's for a different discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn, no other proponents of deletion. (non-admin closure) Oleaster (talk·contribs) 18:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball players who died during their careers

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

This article's topic pretty much duplicates List of baseball players who died during their careers. Don't see the need for both of these. A merge would be a sensible solution too. ...William 14:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could some administrator please speedy close and delete this page? I'm withdrawing the nomination....William 14:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: these links point to the same article. Did you mean that the article duplicates a different, existing article? Ivanvector (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nyctimene (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chione (daughter of Daedalion)

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

Unnecessary repetition - page should be deleted and redirected to the Daedalion article which contains the story in full. Nyctimene (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Speedy keep as nobody voted to delete followed by a redirect.

~~Keep~~, or redirect to Daedalion with the history intact. A lot of our Greek mythology articles are stubs which could probably be expanded. I don't see any good reason to nuke the history. Ivanvector (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern but I can assure you Chione is not mentioned independently of Daedalion in any classical source, save in passing reference to her children. As such however much work you did to the Chione article, however much you expanded and improved it, the article would never be able to add anything new to the page on Daedalion. I urge you to go look at the Daedalion article if you have not already done so. I hope, after reading the tale provided therein, you would agree that they are really two characters in one story and hence it doesn't make sense to have two pages detailing the same thing. Nyctimene (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I did read it before commenting earlier, and you're right that the current articles seem inextricably linked. I'm no expert in Greek mythology so I'll take your word for it that no separate stories are likely. I don't see any reason not to keep the history though. Ivanvector (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just figured the history wasn't adding anything. Getting rid of it then seemed sensible simply to remove clutter and not keep content unnecessarily on Wikipedia's servers. If you still disagree though I'd be happy to support a blank and redirect as you suggest. Nyctimene (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting doesn't actually remove content from the server, it just gets marked as deleted - it can be viewed by admins, undeleted, etc. but it's still taking up space. I guess it really doesn't matter one way or the other whether the history should be visible or not, I just think we default to keep histories of redirected articles unless there's a reason to delete, like the history contains copyright violations or violations of the biographies of living persons policy. Ivanvector (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll withdraw this nomination and proceed with the redirect this evening. Nyctimene (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents of Zero

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

Article created in 2010 and unreferenced apart from external links to the band's site and MySpace. Are they notable? Google starts of with 84,900 hits, but when you get to Page 5 that's down to 45 - and I couldn't see much that looked reliable or independent. Peridon (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMUSIC and WP:BLPPROD - non-notable band, article has no references at all. I didn't find any reliable sources. Ivanvector (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I did a highbeam search without results. I did a google search with less then 50 results and no reliable secondary sources. - Taketa (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of notability, reliable/independent sources. Becky Sayles (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zink

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

No coverage in reliable online or print media, no indication of significance other than assertions in websites that can be self-created Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable secondary sources in the article. I did a highbeam search which gave 5 results on someone who shares this name, but none about the subject. I could not find any reliable sources using google. - Taketa (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero reliable/independent sources. Unremarkable internet search results. Becky Sayles (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vanity page created by Mujeeb mrc (talk · contribs), a persistent self-promoter and sock puppeteer. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Mujeeb Rahman

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

I tagged this for WP:BLPPROD which of course has been removed by the creator with no explanation or subsequent improvement of article. However, I believe I made a mistake in doing so in the first place since it did have 1 source, a Weebly site, so perhaps I shouldn't have tagged it in the first place. In any case, there is absolutely no secondary coverage for this individual. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST Cannolis (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Failed all policies relating to notability and living people. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, deletion requested by author/blanked per G7. (NAC) lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lil B. Sure!

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

I came across this as a WP:A7, but there is an assertion of notability here since he was in a TV show and has performed some with his father (Al B. Sure!). I was going to delete it as WP:G11 (promotion) but I think that there's enough of an assertion of notability to where we should look at whether or not he warrants an entry overall rather than just speedy delete everything. Offhand, I couldn't really find anything in a search to show that he's ultimately notable enough for his own entry. His foray into the world of music and reality TV seems to have mostly flown under the radar. There are some mentions here and there about this ([21], [22], [23]) but by large they're either primary or so brief that it can't really establish notability. What little coverage he's received stems from his father and as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, I can't see where he particularly warrants an article. However I'd like to put this up for AfD to get a broader consensus. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't see enough independent secondary coverage to warrant an article. reddogsix (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus indicates that this is a valid topic that hinges on the clear distinction between "pornographic" and "sex and nudity". Similarly, "Eroge" is a specific Japanese cultural term and does not apply to the wider genre. The article needs improvement and there are reliable sources available to facilitate that. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic video game

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

Having stared at this article for some time, and flagged it for reference deficiencies, I cannot see how it can ever be more than a dictionary definition. A pornographic video game is a video game which is pornographic. Surely all it can ever do is to elaborate on the term 'pornography' and stray into repeating text from articles on video games? Certainly at present all we have is a bit of CNN referenced description, a reference to something else entirely, and a list of papers which may or may not be relevant. Fiddle Faddle 08:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, pretty much a dictionary definition. Furthermore the topic is already covered by the very similar Sex and nudity in video games article referenced on the page itself. Nyctimene (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2014 (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) 16:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sex and nudity in video games. I agree the topic's not notable on its own, but I can see that as a search term and this linked article is a good target for a redirect, even if the term isn't fully called out. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Placing the redirect as Masem suggests is not a bad idea. Ivanvector (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eroge or per Masem. While there are non-Japanese examples, the most well-known are. ansh666 17:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if this should stay, but if it does it should not be at this title. ansh666 08:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Eroge~~ - "Eroge" is a word of Japanese origin, but that doesn't mean that the definition of the word is specific to games made in Japan. The Eroge article should deal with eroge no matter what country of development. Deletion should not be a consideration; "Pornographic video game" is a valid search term, as are the redirects currently pointing to this title. Neelix (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was notified of this AfD because I "created" this page by moving it over to sex and nudity in video games. This article is an attempt to force a genre out of similar but unrelated instances, as was the original version. Just as "bus movie" isn't a film genre just because some films take place in buses. This should be redirected back to sex and nudity in video games. Similarly, saying that eroge should deal with American games is like saying that anime should include Caillou. We don't create articles about the world we want, we stick to the world that is. Eroge is eroge. A "valid search term" doesn't make something real or notable. Search terms are great places for redirects, and the "redirects currently pointing to this title" are valid search terms, which all (until recently) pointed to sex and nudity in video games. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not against a merge with eroge for now, but it should be absolutely without prejudice regarding a split in the future. As JohnnyMrNinja points out, eroge is a specialized form of pornographic video game, not a synonym. Anyway deletion which wipes out the history should not be considered here. I have a hard time believing that the genre (other redirected synonyms include adult game and sex game) hasn't generated enough commentary from the RSes to be considered notable. I'm unable to make a deeper examination at the moment, but a very quick search of Google Scholar, Google Books, and WP:VG's custom search engines using several obvious synonyms ("pornographic video game", "pornographic game", "adult video game", "adult game", "erotic video game", etc.) shows a large number of possibly usable RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into Thibbs' claims above, I find that they are accurate; there are plenty of reliable sources that discuss pornographic/erotic/adult video games as a genre. There also seems to be plenty non-Japanese games in the genre, from a look at Category:Erotic video games. There is plenty of source material that could be used to develop this article, based on a Google Books search. Articles should not be deleted simply because they are poorly written. As such, I am changing my !vote above to Keep. Neelix (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Erotic" and "pornographic", though they may evoke the same thing, are not the same thing. I am confused at why the author (User:Carrot Lord, now retired) decided that they are despite saying that they are not! I'd say move this to Adult video game or Erotic video game, which currently redirects here. ansh666 18:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to back up the claim that they are not the same thing? What differences do you see between them? Neelix (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off the dictionary definitions. ansh666 03:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to a dictionary that provides a definition for "erotic video game" and "pornographic video game"? We cannot infer that the difference between the definitions of "erotic" and "pornographic" result in an encyclopedic difference between erotic video games and pornographic video games. Neelix (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (revised !vote): reviewing both articles, Eroge is specifically about the Japanese genre, while Sex and nudity in video games is more likely what a user who types "pornographic video games" in the search box is looking for. It seems to me that Sex and nudity is the more appropriate target, but I think consensus is against me. So redirect to Eroge with a hatnote to the sex and nudity article. Ivanvector (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are obvious issues with the quality of the article, I don't think this can seriously be argued to be a non-notable topic. Here are a few sources that deal specifically with pornographic video games: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Of course I can keep going. Pornographic games are a substantial industry in Japan, and have been the subject of political debate (one consequence of which was the banning of games depicting pedophilia or rape, which are still legal in the US). However, the phenomenon is obviously not limited to Japan, and ought to be discussed in global perspective. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to editors who suggested redirecting to "Sex and nudity in video games" or something of the like, this is a bit like redirecting "pornographic films" to "sex and nudity in film." There's a clear distinction between media that contains sexual content, and media whose primary purpose is to arouse. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's true for film, where pornographic film is a distinct genre. That seems to be less clear in video games. Ivanvector (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's very clear. Do a google search for "hentai game." --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is eroge. ansh666 03:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear from a Google Books search of the other terms, such as "pornographic video games". See also List of erotic video games which, if there is a merger or redirect, would be a more relevant target than the others that have been recommended. Neelix (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The two main redirect target candidates mentioned above (Eroge and Sex and nudity in video games) contradict each other: the former claims that "eroge" is the generic term for erotic games (and then goes on to pretty much only talk about Japanese games and mention that all eroge have sexually explicit scenes) while the latter claims that the same term applies only to Japanese games - both have the term "pornography" exactly twice, each once about how some people think the games are porn but others disagree. This has led to my, and no doubt others', confusion over whether this or any related page is a fork or duplicate, and of what. Can we clearly define any of these terms, and decide whether any are equivalent: "eroge", "adult video game", "erotic video game", and "pornographic video game"? ansh666 04:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is simply the result of somebody trying to alter reality through WP editing. Above I made the parallel to anime (Japanese) vs animation (generic), but eroge is a little less clear because there is no analogue in the English-typing world. Eroge is a respectable genre because Japanese culture and Japanese markets allow it to be. Someone probably felt that eroge should include all pornographic games (even though it doesn't) because then we'd have a box we could lump these other games into. Since they don't fit in the eroge box, someone else felt they should create one at the pornographic game, but it's the same story of trying to alter reality through WP editing. And if enough people read it on Wikipedia, it will become true. That's how the world got the concept of video game console "generations". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Sex and nudity in video games. No it's not an exact title match but this is not notable on its own and that's the closest match, and covers this pretty well as part of its current content.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Above I listed five sources that discuss pornographic games in general, but amazingly, there still seems to be some confusion about whether pornographic games even exist, or exist as a distinct genre. I would advise anyone who has such doubts to look at list of erotic video games, which lists a small selection of what is out there. You'll notice that most of the games are Japanese, but many are Western. Actually there is not only a genre, but multiple distinct subgenres of pornographic games: dating sims, wherein you try to convince characters (usually women) to sleep with you via text dialogues and are rewarded with pornographic images (there are some Western games in this category, such as Singles: Flirt Up Your Life); run-or-rape games, wherein you either rape people or try to escape rapists; a vast multitude of silly flash games like Super Deepthroat where you manually control sex acts (many Western games fall in this category); 3D simulators like those by ThriXXX (again, Western games are more represented here); training games like Slavemaker 3, wherein you train slaves either for sale or to collect a harem; MMO's such as Sociolotron and Adult Virtual World; and in fact other subgenres as well, with no limit of opportunities to not have sex with real people in person. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see:

Source #1 is about a serious game, not for entertainment or erotic purposes.
Source #2 talks specifically about Rapelay, and calls it eroge.
Source #3 does not group these games in a genre besides the rating (AO, adult-only) or eroge.
Source #4 is inaccessible online even with my uni credentials, so maybe? Can't judge this one, the "abstract" tells us absolutely nothing.
Source #5 is a study about domestic violence and sexual assault in video games.
None of the "sources" in your comment immediately above are remotely reliable.

So, yes, it is right that there is confusion. And, even if you clearly established that "pornographic video game" exists as a genre, there would still be confusion as to where the other terms fit in with this. ansh666 18:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The examples in the comment immediately above were obviously not intended as sources. They are intended to inform those who are unaware of the thousands of pornographic games that exist. As for your criticism of the five actual sources, I think almost everything you said is wrong, but rather than dispute it point by point, here are five more sources: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again? Ok.

"...Japanese Youth Culture". About eroge.
"...serious games". Also about eroge, as well as about using them as serious games as opposed to entertainment.
"Animalization of Otaku culture". Guess what Otaku is? Japanese.
Now we're getting somewhere, but labels them as "adult/erotic games" - meaning a name change is probably preferred.
"...in Japan". Are you even reading these?

I'd seriously like to think why you think these sources are relevant. ansh666 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is not "non-serious pornographic video games of other than Japanese origin." --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point one. The definition given by Wikipedia for pornography is "the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal". The definition of serious game is "a game designed for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment". Are these two not at odds with each other?

Point two: I'm not saying that sources about Japanese games and culture are not valid, but if we work off the definition of eroge as Japanese games only, they're useless to determine whether a general, international genre exists. ansh666 21:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 1: No, they are not at odds. Entertainment is not the only conceivable purpose of sexual arousal. Re point 2: I honestly don't think you seriously believe what you're saying. Do you dispute that many non-Japanese pornographic games exist? If so I can easily point you to, say, thirty of them (out of hundreds). Or do you want a reliable secondary source to say they exist in numbers? In that case see my source #9. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on the first point. About the second, I do know they exist, but the question is whether they are considered a genre outside of Japan. Otherwise, claiming that they are is WP:OR. ansh666 21:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the question of whether this is a proper genre or not is sidetracking the discussion here. The article doesn't purport to cover a genre and anyway whether or not it is a valid genre is a content question, not a deletion issue. The question is whether multiple RSes cover the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious to me that there are multiple RSes that cover the topic. This source provided by Sammy1339 above clearly does, as does this book, this book, this offline book, and this magazine. Neelix (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's claiming that there are not such games outside of Japan (yes there are 100s of homemade games on Newgrounds alone), but they rarely get coverage in RSs, so they are primarily not notable. The few times they do get even minor coverage, the concept of "porn games" is only mentioned in passing. Outside of Japan each of these games are seen as unique. And no, linking to a college student's term paper does not count as passing GNG. And even if it did, there cannot be enough content provided by any RSs to expand this between a definition which is easily understood by the combination of those words. People will come here and learn that a "pornographic video game" is a "video game" which is "pornographic"; no knowledge gained. There is no way that this isn't already covered better at the other articles linked above. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"13-10"

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

This is an unremarkable football match, which took place during a league season. If this was the final of a major tournament, then the match would be notable, but there are upsets in league football all the time. ~~Furthermore, the article is totally unreferenced~~. Bikeroo (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bikeroo (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add some references, by all means do so. "unremarkable" you do realize that App State has a article about them about being Michigan right? Then by your logic, that should be deleted too. Upsets all the time? I do hope you know this was the first by a Mid-American Conference team to do so. League? you do realize this college football, I'm guessing you're a Michigan an and wish to delete this because the team lost. I did add some refences bu you had to delete them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woody72691 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was the first time? Bowling Green beat Northwestern in the 2003 Motor City Bowl, and I could probably go back farther. Appalachian State was at that time a 1-AA school, and that upset received far more coverage than this upset. p b p 14:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PBP, it is not the first time a MAC team beat a Big 10 team; not even close. See the Miami Redskins/Redhawks history link below. Miami (the one in Oxford, not Coral Gables) was notorious for picking off an over-confident Big 10 team every two or three years in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the Miami Redskins have beaten Indiana three times, Michigan once, Michigan State once, Northwestern six times, Purdue three times; Bowling Green has beaten Minnesota once, Northwestern twice, and Purdue twice; Ohio has beaten Illinois three times, Indiana once, Minnesota once, and Penn State once; Western Michigan has beaten Illinois once, Iowa twice, Michigan State twice, and Wisconsin once. These are examples, mind you, not a comprehensive list. I cannot recall an occasion when a MAC team was a favorite against a Big 10 team, but MAC teams have beaten Big 10 teams more than 30 times. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1:, thanks for doing the grunt work. Looks to be about what I expected...MAC team beats a Big Ten team every 2-3 years. Since most Big Ten teams play 1-2 MAC teams annually, that makes sense p b p 21:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: See "Cradle of Coaches" -- it's something every knowledgeable CFB fan should know. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Individual regular season college football games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. Pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games generally should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see 2008 Toledo Rockets football team and 2008 Michigan Wolverines football team). And for the record, what distinguishes this game from the 2007 Appalachian State-Michigan upset is Toledo is a Division I FBS team; Appalachian State is a Division I FCS team that upset an FBS team -- and that generated significant coverage that continues to this day. Also, I'm old enough to remember other MAC upsets of Big 10 teams in the past; Toledo was not the first (see Miami RedHawks football#History for examples). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, it provides that "a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)" may be suitable for a stand-alone article.

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer's thorough analysis. I was tempted to say merge to 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season but I doubt that "13-10" is a probable search target, and anyway it is nowhere near specific enough to identify the subject. The content here could be summarized in the "key matchups" table on the season page though. Ivanvector (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2008 Toledo vs. Michigan football game, and then Merge with 2008 Toledo Rockets football team. While the current article title is garbage, this game is definitely notable in relation to the 2008 Toledo season article, and it contains information and details not currently included in the season article. They should be preserved and included in the 2008 Toledo season article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the page has been moved from "13-10" to 13-10 leaving a redirect which should also be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved yet again, to 2008 Toledo vs. Michigan Football Game. -- Bikeroo (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no reason this football game is particularly notable. It's not a bowl game, it's not even a game between ranked opponents. So a MAC team beat a Big Ten team? We don't need articles on every time that happened. p b p 14:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer. There have been 1000s (if not 10s of 1000s) of games that have ended with this score. Shall we list all of them at an article with this title? WP:INDISCRIMINATE would seem to apply as well. MarnetteD|Talk 15:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT not enough coverage to distinguish it from another game, as DirtLawyer said this isn't the first MAC upset of a Big-10 team and had nothing to distinguish it. As opposed to the coverage of the 2012 Packers–Seahawks officiating controversy, the game had no lasting effects.--Church ^Talk 19:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I love great upsets, especially by the MAC, this was just another run-of-the-mill NCAA football game. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer. Becky Sayles (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halley M. Pontes

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

does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMICS - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. No WP:RS. WoS shows a single, newly-published-but-never-cited paper. Uncontroversial delete of a newly-minted-not-yet-notable researcher. Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article now has 5 inline citations and should be kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are just abstracts of the few papers he's written. If you're trying to show notability per WP:GNG, you'll have to find sources that discuss him, not sources by him. I couldn't find any. Notability on WP:PROF is a dead end. He's an entry-level researcher who has not yet made any notable contributions. His ResearchGate page lists all of his work (including master's thesis, conference posters, etc), but also shows 0 cumulative citations (same a WoS). Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Please explain the tags for copyediting and NPOV for this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately fails both WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLAR with just 6 citations on Google Scholar. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paysafecard

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Deleted once few years ago, recreated, prodded, declined - now here again. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article on a non-notable company, repeatedly created by single-purpose accounts. In the latest version of the article, there has been a concerted attempt to make it look as though there is evidence of notability by bombarding the article with numerous references, but those references don't stand up to examination. Several of them are 404-deadlinks, at least one doesn't even mention Paysafecard, many others are on Paysafecard's own web site, others are non-independent, unreliable, etc. One of the references even declares itself to be original research, relying on comparison of two different sources, together with "a personal inquiry at several local stores"! Not one of the references is the sort of thing that is required by Wikipedia guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to be pure spam. Examination of the references reveals several problems, per JamesBWatson. Becky Sayles (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mezmerize (album). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violent Pornography

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

Non-notable promotional single. Article contains nothing about this single but instead about the album on which it features '''tAD''' (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONG, no relevant hits on a cursory search for this, just lyric websites. not to mention the entire background section is literally copy/pasted from the Mezmerize (album) page, including mention of a different single, and the album article does not describe this song as one of its singles. Cannolis (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2014 (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/2014 October 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mezmerize (album), not notable independently of this album. Jinkinson talk to me 01:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the Mezmerize article does mention the title there, and that appears verifiable at [34]. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend Radio

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Little or no coverage aside from passing references in stories about radio station on which it airs (WCLV), or for station's founder (Robert Conrad). Propose to delete target and create redirect to WCLV. Levdr1lp / talk 18:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Levdr1lp / talk 18:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Levdr1lp / talk 18:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this show has been nationally syndicated on dozens of different public radio stations since 1982, as the coverage indicates [35][36], then it ought to pass the notability test at WP:RPRGM. Even if we conclude it doesn't currently warrant its own article, I don't see why one would delete this rather than merge it, adding some content and footnotes to the merge target. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly did not see anything about this show syndicating nationally "to over 80 outlets", so thank you for finding the Cleveland.com link. Still, though, I'm hesitant to keep a stand-alone article given the lack of coverage on the show itself. The link focuses on Robert Conrad, the show's host, not the show. Levdr1lp / talk 21:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 17:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What.CD

AfDs for this article:

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

What.cd is a small, private website and is not notable enough to warrant its own Wiki entry. Seriously no one outside of the BitTorrent community has even heard of What.cd. If it weren't for TorrentFreak this article would have no credible sources. According to WP:GNG,

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

Right now the only prominent website providing significant coverage of What.cd is TorrentFreak who only covers BitTorrent related news. Skarz (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage spans a number of great sources for some useful/notable events (the COFFEE leak, music distribution, takedowns). Although I agree it is marginal, the breadth of coverage meets GNG and the specific incidents are of relative importance enough to warrant inclusion. With respect to TorrentFreak; I believe this was raised before (though so long ago I only vaguely recall) and the community agreed that TF was a reliable resource *for the purposes of reporting BitTorrent News* (see here). --Errant ^(chat!) 09:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will note there is a entry at TechCrunch on it, and some passing discussion on OregonLive.com here. Mention in a book here Get More Fans: The DIY Guide to the New Music Business. JTdale ^Talk 07:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What.CD received significant coverage in France's widely-respected Le Monde newspaper here just last month. However, members contacted the author and asked that the name and identifying features be removed, which the newspaper did. Still, the screenshots are easily recognizable, including the log-in page which anyone can see at [37]. In addition to the book listed above, it's mentioned in Internet Censorship: Protecting Citizens or Trampling Freedom?, and in at least a dozen journal articles. As for it being small, it's hard to know what to measure that against - it's one of the largest "top-shelf" private trackers out there (over 140,000 members, over 1.9 million torrents). It's no Facebook but it's more people than Greenland and Andorra put together… Strong keep. Goyston talk, contribs 22:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting tidbit (not related to the AFD); I originally created this article after randomly picking something from "requested articles" list. The effort of the site members to try and remove any mention of their site is really quite interesting; both on and off Wikipedia. Thanks for finding the other sources! Really useful :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Given the sources here, already cited, and available within the first few pages of ghits I'd say it gets by WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cahul Musical-Drama Theatre

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

I tried merging, but as the article creator's response was to accuse me of vandalism — Rgvis, as someone who's been editing Wikipedia since spring 2009, you really should recognize that as part of the normal editing process by now — I now turn to the blunter instrument of AfD, although, should the consensus be to merge, I would not be displeased.

Anyway: if all we have to say about this organization is that it exists, that it is located in a particular city and was founded at a particular date, then I'm afraid that simply isn't enough for a standalone article, which does in fact require, per WP:GNG, "significant coverage". - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cahul Musical-Drama Theatre article was edited from the beginning as a stub, in order to provide the opportunity for continuous improvement, during the time. The article is about a cultural state institution, the only public theatre in that part of the country (South Moldova), and it contains verifiable information. There are many, many other examples of this kind of articles (many of them poorer than this contested article), on Wikipedia: Andon Zako Çajupi Theatre, Teatro Urbano Girardi, Hrachya Ghaplanyan Drama Theatre, Stanislavski Russian Theatre of Yerevan, AffrontTheater, Burghofspiele Voitsberg, Der Grüne Wagen, Silesian Theatre, Ioan Slavici Classical Theatre, The English Theatre of Bruges, Opéra Royal de Wallonie, Kumamoto Prefectural Theater, Nissay Theatre, Naturtheater Hayingen, Theater Ulm, Butler House (St. Louis, Missouri), Beverly Theater, Aladdin Theater (Portland, Oregon), Théâtre de l'Archevêché, Théâtre de verdure de Nice, Millennium Theatre (Prague), Musical Theatre Karlín, just to name a few. I consider that, in this case, through his action, Biruitorul did not comply with the requirements of Wikipedia:Editing policy. Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

WP:WAX is not a valid argument, although I would agree many of these articles should be considered for deletion/merger.
The fact that this is the only public theatre in southern Moldova is significant if reliable sources have commented on this fact. Otherwise, see WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH.
There's a difference between a stub that can potentially be expanded and one that can't. For instance, yesterday I started Daniel Danielopolu. It's obviously a stub, but can as obviously be expanded from here and here and, I'm sure, elsewhere.
On the other hand, rhetoric aside, you've shown no indication that this article can even potentially meet GNG — "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Until that happens, we should delete or at least merge. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your point of view regarding this article (I prefer facts, not personal interpretations about how the article would evoluate in a more or less near future), but I respect the fact that, finally, you have started acting in a more, let's say, Wikipedian Way. Still, nothing can justify your first actions regarding this article (that's why I had made a suggestion on reviewing the Wikipedia:Five pillars). Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Herodian Tetrarchy. There does not appear to be a clear consensus regarding keeping or deleting this article, but as most content is copied from Herodian Tetrarchy and that article is not too large itself, a redirect seems to be the best solution. Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iturea and Trachonitis (tetrarchy)

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

This article is a Fork/ Duplication of another article:
What is not duplicated is Original Research:
The subject, per title, lacks Notability. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Additional): This article has a whole list of problems.
First, it is almost entirely copied from the Herodian Tetrarchy article: Only the title, lead sentence and some of the stuff in the infobox are original.
Second, what is original here really is Original; it is based on a misreading of the term “Tetrarchy”. We (and the concise OED) define "tetrarchy" as a system of government involving four rulers; the article puts forward the view that “tetrarchy” is the name for the territory ruled by a tetrarch (in this case, Herod's son, Philip) and, although the sources are unclear which territories Philip actually ruled, presumes to tell us categorically.
Third, if this polity did in fact carry this name, it lacks notability as a subject. We already have articles on the Herodian Tetrarchy as a whole, and on all the individual rulers, and on all the territories they governed; there is nothing to be gained from an article on one particular arrangement of territories, which cannot say anything that cannot be, and probably hasn't already been, said in the articles we already possess. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Srnec (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as polities of any historical era are inherently notable provided their existence can be confirmed, per WP:NPLACE. However, it is problematic that the article is mostly copied from another one. Perhaps it should be reduced to stub-size for now, and/or tagged for cleanup. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the problem, isn't it? We only have St Luke's word for it that Philip ruled only these two territories, and we only have the original editors word for it that this is what his kingdom was called.

And if we strip out all that was copied, we are left with the stub “The Tetrarchy of Iturea and Trichonitis, also known as the Tetrarchy of Batanea was one of the Herodian Tetrarchies between 4 BCE to 34 CE. It...“, and all of those statements are questionable. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to The Glee Project#Contenders 2. Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shanna Henderson

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

Article refers to Shanna as "he" mostly (she's a young woman), is unsourced (BLP and notability issue), and she does not meet Wikipedia notability standards (see WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG). Her claims to fame are a sixth-place finish on The Glee Project, an EP, and a recent, non-notable TV movie. Even if article was improved (it needs a major copyedit), it still wouldn't qualify under notability standards. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the assessment of the nominating editor. The major edits required and the lack of any sources required for a BLP certainly qualifies this article for deletion. Aytea (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSBIO. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Glee_Project#Contenders_2 unless other sources establishing notability can be found. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Joe Decker. Entirely unsourced BLP about a non-notable performer. Ivanvector (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirects are for those who are borderline notable that could possibly have an article in the near future. Subject clearly fails that and any notability. It should also be mentioned that the "website" given there is now for sale. — Wylie pedia 03:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is listed in the table at the suggested redirect target, which is normally how we treat potential search terms, and it's not likely that we'll write any more about her. That, and redirects are cheap. Ivanvector (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damion Lowe

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - After reviewing the comments by other editors here on this AfD, I'm going to say this article just scrapes the standards of WP:GNG due to significant media coverage. IJA (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG with [38], [39], [40], [41], and [42]. Nfitz (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets GNG with the reasonable and detailed sources provided by Nfitz. C 679 13:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [43], [44], [45], [46]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above sources demonstrate notability via BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability requirements have been met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lion-tech

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

Company appears to be non-notable on a cursory search of Google and Bing. Putting this up on AfD in case I'm missing something big. Lithorien (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lion-Tech is a fast growing company and its software is currently used by many users. The firm operates worldwide and collaborates with companies such as Microsoft. It is only a matter of time when will acquire global significance. Given that the sites of companies like Microsoft, Apple and a number of smaller IT companies exists on Wikipedia, I see no reason why not to allow even this page. :-) Capak89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capak89 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "fast growing" and "only a matter of time" are merely predictive. Wikipedia has no "sites of companies"; at most it has pages about companies of demonstrable attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references verify existence but not notability. Searches are not turning up any significant coverage of this Lion-Tech. (Note there is a similarly named battery firm in Taiwan.) Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AllyD. C 679 12:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HITT (band)

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

Band was active for short period of time, no longer active, and an insignificant band, article will not be updated due to bands inactiveness Emzidrama (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable music band, old references (all of them is from 2011). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keaclamviectot (talk • contribs) 03:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This would be an outright delete except for the fact that it seems they had one song that charted in Korea. There is no reference for that fact, though, and they weren't even together a full year. If that song can be dealt with, I'd say merge it into a relevant article (like for the songwriter, or label) then delete the article. Otherwise, just delete.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atelier Viking

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

Non-notable ... well, what? artist's studio, maybe. A lot of artists have studios. Even after making every possible allowance for WP:CSB, this still is not encyclopaedic content until and unless independent reliable sources are added. By "independent" I specifically mean not connected in any way with User:Iopensa and her network of mutually supporting institutions and organisations (WikiAfrica, Lettera 27, Doual'art, Africultures, etc.), some of which may have independent notability, but whose presence here is the result of work by a tiny pressure-group (see Talk:Doual'art for an example). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here a link to a major academic publication explaining why artist's studios in Africa are notable [47]I an not a contributing author of this book.
Africultures is an independent reliable source (online and printed) with an established reputation and cited extensively. It is a source independent from the article subject. The link I have with Africultures is that i convinced them while working at lettera27 and WikiAfrica to release the content of their online platforms under cc by-sa in the frame of Share Your Knowledge (about the project and list of institutions involved with related case studies).
The publication "Douala in translation" is a source independent from the article subject. It has been produced by doual'art and iStrike Foundation which are not associated to Atelier Viking, which is a different institution in the same city.
I am not citing my work in the article (I have another essay in the book "Douala in translation", I have contributed to doual'art and iStrike Foundation as volunteer, but i have never studied or made research on Atelier Viking; i visited it once and I have no professional nor private links with it).

Contemporary African art is my professional expertise as researcher, and "tiny" is the perfect term to define the number of people contributing to African-related topics on Wikipedia and specifically to contemporary African art. Contributing to a topic on Wikipedia does not mean to represent a pressure-group and involving institution in releasing content under cc by-sa does not mean that I have or I am involved in a network of mutually supporting institutions and organizations. Here a pretty detailed description of my professional and private links; this article is not meant to be promotional, the sources are cited because relevant to the article (none of them written by me), and the reason I wrote an article about an institution in Cameroon (no paid editing nor paid advocacy) is simply to allow Wikipedia to provide notable content about the cultural production of post-indepedence nations, a simply encyclopedic topic. --Iopensa (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently non-promotional; there is no reason why artists' studios cannot be notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. 120.23.43.133 (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rembert Duine

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

~~Seems to fail WP:PROF gidonb (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn - If this can work under WP:PROF, than I have no objection to the article! gidonb (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of first author papers in the Physical Review family, h-index 22 (WoS) with several papers having >100 citations. This fulfills WP:PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma Echandy

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

Non notable beauty pageant contestant Witty lama 20:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Point blank fails general notability. Almost completely non-encyclopaedic and uncited content - including stuff about her father's troubles with the law, which I have removed as a violation of WP:BLP and almost seems like a personal attack - "look her daddy was in trouble with the law!" - which has NO bearing on her as a person. Mabalu (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps of newspapers (US, world, Spanish, entertainment, fashion) found no sources suggesting this person meets the WP:GNG, although there was a mention here and mention here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deathrealm. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrealms

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

Non-notable collection of short stories. Mikeblas (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deathrealm. The magazine itself appears to be notable, but I can't see where this anthology has individual notability. It's already briefly mentioned in the main article for Deathrealm, so a redirect would be best in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Park Ridge Pirates AFC

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

A newly formed non-notable amateur club. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable club. Fails WP:ORG. According to the the website of AFL Queensland there are a variety of levels/divisions and regional groupings for AFL - this is the page where the Park Ridge Pirates are mentioned. I'd suggest an overarching article on the different divisions/groupings in the region would be viable, and that would list the names of the different teams. Witty lama 20:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although some of the arguments given by the "keep" !votes are a bit farfetched, most are to-the-point and supported by sources (which are not yet in the article, I see). DGG's suggestion makes most sense to me, as this textbook, while notable, really is a borderline case. However, as there is no article on the author yet, a merge there is currently not possible. I am therefore closing this as "keep". Any discussion on merging this to a future article on the author can take place on the article talk page. Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Biology (textbook)

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

Out-dated textbook that hasn't been updated since 1983. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK since it is not current for cirricula and not reviewed in current guides. Mikeblas (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article with no indication that this text is notable. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of many non-notable textbooks. No citations at all that I can find. -- 120.23.87.65 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whether it's "out-dated" or not currently used is completely irrelevant. Likewise, coverage in current guides is not necessary. Was it reviewed in older guides? This seems likely if it was a widely used book, although finding the sources will be a chore. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, currency is completely relevant. Textbooks must be current; if they're not updated, they're not used. Since notability is not temporary, current a textbook that isn't updated, isn't used, not referenced by current teaching guides, is therefore not notable by the GNG and NBOOK. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeblas: I think you are confusing the question of whether the book is suitable as a reference for other articles with the question of whether it is notable in its own right. The latter is what determines whether it merits an article. For example, the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is not current, but is still notable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This textbook would be notable, in spite of being out-of-date, if it had been famous in its day (like the 1942 book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis). Unfortunately, this textbook is not in that category. -- 120.23.92.244 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. Whether the book is out of date is utterly irrelevant. If this was notable in the past, it is notable now. In any event, out of date books are bought, read and used all the time. They cost less than new books. We are constantly using out of date books on this website, partly because we have no choice. Plus which, new books are not necessarily better. Up to date information cannot make up for a lack of talent. Useful information is sometimes omitted from a new edition for reasons of space. This book will likely reach the public domain sooner than more recent books. And so forth. James500 (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC) And if this book is so useless, why is it being cited in recent books such as: Columbia University Press, 2013, Springer, 2012, Oxford University Press, 2002? James500 (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find it listed in a bibliography of evolutionary biology, but there were many many other books there as well. It's definitely not "Origin of Species." The information in the article about this textbook is totally mundane, and could be said about any book ever published: "627 pages long" - yep, books have pages; "The book contains an index and various biographical references." - well, if it didn't, I doubt if any textbook publisher would have published it; "The book contains over 25 chapters" - yep, books have chapters, and 25 isn't a HUGE number. Really, there is nothing about this book that rises above "a book." LaMona (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies criteria 1 of NBOOKS with multiple reviews in journals. Contrary to the remarks above, this book has been reviewed: [48]. This comes up immediately in JSTOR on a search of "evolutionary biology"+minkoff, and should have been unmissable. The book has another review in volume 23 of the South African Journal of Zoology at p 250: [49]. There are many other results in GBooks. Dozens at least. James500 (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am of the view that this book clearly satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale Sources provided by James500 require consideration. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have to admit, I'm seeing this book used very, very frequently as a source in Google Scholar ([50], [51], [52], a basic hit shows over 200 links) and in Google Books ([53], [54], [55], [56], [57]). Basically, this looks like it was fairly definitive in its field and the amount of scholarly hits for a textbook that old suggests that there are sources, but they're likely ones that did not make it into the online databases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose to an article on the author. The author has written a number of college level biology textbooks, and is notable on that basis. This is just one of them, and not necessarily the most important. I could probably demosnrate that this book does meet notability standard, but it will still be more usefu to bring the discussion together with those of the orther books in an author article. I'm prepared to the the basic work for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that- that looks like it'd be an easier task overall as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes one claim of notability: "Evolutionary Biology was extremely pivotal in discussing the various viewpoints and theories of meiosis and abiogenesis in relation to the origin of life and the evolution of the biologic species." If a source can be cited for this information then keep. Otherwise delete. I was not able to read any of the reviews but I suspect they say something like: "This textbook gives accurate information on evolution and would be a good choice for your classes." As such it has been cited in other books. But there is no substantial coverage as required by WP policy to establish notability. I agree that an article on the author would be more appropriate. Borock (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines require no such thing. Nor is there any reason why they should. They do however need to be rewritten to stop editors from arguing that no matter how much coverage there is, it isn't significant. If two book reviews in peer-reviewed journals is not significant coverage, nothing is. James500 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The general policy says "significant coverage in reliable sources", not "substantial coverage." I have no objection to the book and an article on it does no harm to anyone. However I would still say "delete." Who would read a review of a textbook except professors teaching classes on the subject? That does not seem like even "significant coverage" to me. Borock (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" has nothing to do with the likely audience. In any event, "only professors would be interested in this" is an argument that would tend to promote the lowest common denominator. No article should ever be deleted on such grounds. In any event, a review of this book might be read by anyone who wanted to assess the utility of this book. That would include students, researchers, teachers, librarians, historians, Wikipedians, and anyone who was sufficiently interested in evolutionary biology to consider buying, borrowing or reading a book on the subject (and there may be many such people). Articles on sources are also important to provide context for Wikipedia's citations. James500 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to put down professors. If there is at least one review that is more than a buying guide I will change my vote to keep. Borock (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are not just buying guides. James500 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of sources discovered by James500. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (but not an argument): A textbook is a conduit to bring information from the sources to the students. A water main is never mentioned unless it breaks and floods the city. If it does its job it never becomes "notable." Borock (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This analogy is completely superficial. A textbook is nothing like a water main. James500 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Borock: it's also completely wrong. There are many textbooks, like The Feynman Lectures on Physics, that are famous because they did their job exceptionally well. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if there is some evidence that this is one of them I will change to keep. I'm confident it's a good textbook, but not that it is really notable in the WP sense. Borock (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia notability is based primarily on the volume of coverage, which this thing satisfies easily due to the reviews and the sheer number of citations, which are evidence of influence (cf the use of citation counts under PROF). In any event, all serious scholarly literature is important by reason of being what it is. James500 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental 2014

AfDs for this topic:

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

Given that the rest of the Miss International articles have recently been deleted, this one should be too. Despite the vast quantity of references, there is very little reliable sourcing (almost everything seems to be a primary source, blog, forum, or Facebook - I did an editing check by going through and removing all the crap refs and only about four or five local girl-done-good articles were left.) ZERO references to support notability of the pageant itself. Cannot see sufficient international coverage to show that this international pageant passes notability requirements, as per the previous Miss Intercontinental AFDs. Mabalu (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we don't even have an article about the overall Miss Intercontinental pageant -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental -- then there's no reason why we would want to have an article about one particular year's edition of it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If somebody wants to have this userfied, they can leave a note on my talk page. Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Jacob Klein

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

WP:BIO states

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

I am not seeing significant coverage in independent secondary sources. The existing sources in the article are mostly internal lists, announcements, etc., which are neither independent nor secondary. I was able to find a 2007 Gamasutra article mentioning Klein's keynote speech at Game Developers Conference 2007, and an article from "Educationdive.com" which is used to cite the assertion that Klein was elected to the WMF board in 2009. Unfortunately, these additions do not bring the sourcing to a level needed to demonstrate notability, IMO. Eddymason (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or perhaps use the Wikipedia:Userfy under SJ's page. But it does fail Wikipedia:Notability (people) as far as I can tell. Please see the similar situation at his collegue's page, Benjamin Mako Hill (which he started). I am afraid it's too soon for both of them. --Ego Hunter (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy per nom, as the sources in article now, as well as most of those I could find through Google, are primary. Fails WP:BIO. Jinkinson talk to me 01:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyright concerns, https://www.facebook.com/iancaplemusic/info SpinningSpark 18:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Caple

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He's certainly notable in a meaningful real-world sense, and his production work gets several mentions on GBooks. --Michig (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But he fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's a well known and successful producer with a career spanning over 30 years with sufficient sources to confirm this, which meets the spirit of "have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia". --Michig (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep He's not Albini, but amongst UK people who know record producers, he's known as a record producer. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does this establish notability? reddogsix (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise that policy prevents anyone disagreeing with the nominator. As to the letter of policy, then Allmusic is a dull read but it's a decent catalogue that shows he has been around rather a while. Nor is that the only reference there, and has been there all along. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, sarcasm for asking a simple question. Do you really think I was rude or did I read you wrong? The Allmusic references are just lists as are most of the others. The management company article is not independent. The sum total of the references is they appear to be trivial. reddogsix (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable record producer, long standing career. Szzuk (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: I've noticed a potential copyright concern and listed the article for investigation on that issue. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most top google hits are social media. The first hit from a major source was the Gazette in England commenting on his bankruptcy.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of that change his body of work? That's what he's notable for, not his bank balance. It's also common that many BLP subjects have a large footprint on social media and because social media is large, it's often the biggest footprint. That doesn't "dilute" what else they've done though. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarsus Group plc

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

Apparently non-notable company. I don't see how this meets WP:CORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominating editor, there is no claim (cited or otherwise) of corporate notability. Aytea (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTED and WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE TO DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterofdongs (talk • contribs) 00:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is a vote of a blocked user who gave no reason for deletion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; International does not mean necessarily ntoable. It remains am minor company, at least on the basis of the evidence shown herev DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Johan Neerman. a merge to Johan Neerman seems the best solution for now, with no prejudice against re-expansion to a separate article if things develop . doncram, you seem to understand the situation, so would you please do it? DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) (This also applies to Johanson3 scooters.) DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johanson3

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

This is a failed IndieGoGo project. It probably never should have been created anyway. The information that was in the article before I revised it was machine translated as well as extremely poorly sourced. I am also nominating the following related page because it is basically the exact same article:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you are not there to put a personal statement. Articles have all necessary proof from verified sources listed below and for your information Company has registered branding, patents and concept and manufacturing the products now.Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I would really appreciate if before editing notes or making groundless opinion you would rely on reliable sources without violating content. Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The only more or less reliable source is a BBC blog, other refs are either dead or copy press releases. Lemnaminor (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johanson3 articles

I cannot not agree with Lemnaminor as articles have more than BBC blog. Please have a look at http://www.gizmodo.de/2014/09/09/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter.html http://www.techfieber.de/2014/08/31/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter-video/ http://goodcrowd.info/post/93407293659/belgian-transport-designer-johan-neerman-announces http://www.industrie-techno.com/le-velo-solaire-qui-veut-remplacer-la-voiture.32282 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/innovative-approach-personal-mobility-launches-111400050.html Also check company data at http://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonondernemingps.html?ondernemingsnummer=837049028 Johanson3 product holds several patents on innovation and technology. You can find this information by doing your homework on google. This proves the uniqueness of the product and its originality. Before expressing unvalid statements and give personal opinion please do your research on the subject. I would like to encourage you also to have a look at the story of this company and their background http://archives.lesoir.be/neerman-dans-le-metro_t-20000819-Z0JKRZ.html/ http://archives.lesoir.be/100-vagues-a-lames-l-irresistible-legerete-de-l-alu-les_t-20030307-Z0MWVF.html http://neerman.net You can find more information in the books, journals, printed editions and archives noted at the page of the owner of the company as it was created in 1967 and internet at that time was not so popular. Nominator Brightgalrs appears to have no expertise in the field and seems to focus on ( please follow the link) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brightgalrs which makes his statements suspicious of any decent contribution to the page - Regards, - Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johanson3 and related articles

I am really keen on removing AFD template and closing this discussion. For the following reasons:

It was open for more than 7 days already and didn’t receive any negative feedback from the other editors (In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days to allow interested editors adequate time to participate)
Written article has all necessary proof of trustworthy; also status data of the company is currently available on internet and the state website. If nominator Brightgalrs cannot find it I encourage him to have a look at http://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonondernemingps.html?ondernemingsnummer=837049028 (A "speedy keep" outcome is appropriate when the nomination unquestionably is an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption)
I see just negative erroneous that they indicate that the nominator Brightgalrs has not even read the article in question.

I also would like to ask the administrator to close this discussion and relist article. Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please: don't take these discussions personally. Going through your sources:

[58] shows that the company exists and is registered in Belgium - that in itself is not sufficient to indicate notability
neerman.net is a primary source
both lesoir articles do not mention Johanson3 at all
the gizmodo and techfieber articles are largely identical and appear to be German translations of the press release announcing the company's indiegogo campaign
the yahoo 'article' is that same press release
goodcrowd.info allows anybody to submit articles 'in the form of a standard press release': it does not seem a reliable source
industrie-techno.com is basically a French translation of the company's press materials. The article is placed in their design and mockup section, indicating that there is no real product yet.

That leaves the BBC blog as the only more or less RS and leads to the conclusion that this company and its proposed product are not notable. In addition, Julia Williams123 seems to be a SPA with a very close connection to the subject: this user almost exclusively edits articles on the Neerman family and companies, or inserts pictures of the Johanson3 into vaguely related articles.--Lemnaminor (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with you. LeSoir article is destined to speak about the creator behind the johanson3 series. If you do understand French you will see that the inventor has notable background by designing various transport systems in Europe which is recognized worldwide. The Name of Johan Neerman is clearly identifiable in this article. You can also follow that the same person is the creator of the range of the johanson3 e-bikes and the creator of the company. The link to Website provided proves that the company exists and in good standing. It is not a company directory that you may consider not verified it’s a government website with all data registration. Regarding articles in Gizmodo, Techfieber, Yahoo, Industrie–techno, photovoltaic and others they were all written by different editors. You can find the name of the editors. Yes indeed they all talk about johanson3 like a new way of transportation but they are not like you call identical as they are put by different editors and in different languages nothing to do with a copy of press release. All links provided above proves the information to be only of a professional nature with no personal point of view. It seems that you keep disliking professional publications for more personal reasons than professional ones as you have not read them thoroughly. Regarding comment of “not notable”. Company and product johanson3 own several international patents. Do your homework on google it will give you some more thought. Among of all reasons for deletions I cannot find any that will be related to the articles. I see just a person giving his personal views by trying to impose weak conclusions about the company. Facts are there. Apparently you did not check good enough the reliable sources that I have provided you. I understand that may be you have your personal opinion and strong feelings about and the inventor. It would be greatly appreciated if you would try not to violate content.

Regarding my close connection to the subject I’m quite happy that you understand that I write always in the same field of transportation also please note that nor Brightgalrs nor Lemnaminor (talk) have no experience in writing in the field of transportation or any close related field. See bellow

List of predicted dates of the end of the world or similar events
List of people who have claimed to be Jesus
Forest swastika
Calculator spelling
Manhattanhenge
Arcaicam Esperantom
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
Dick Assman
I, Libertine
Naked Came the Stranger
Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D
Wilhelm scream
Ferret legging
Small penis rule
Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan

Regards, - Julia Williams123

First, it doesn't really matter who actually nominates an article for deletion. Second, the references are utter crap end of story. The first sentence of the article "Johanson3 scooters are made of a range of 5 light electric stable (trikes)with 4Kw maximum that have high payload capacity and the natural extension of the pedestrian due to its high sitting position." is supported by [59] and [60] as references. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 04:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the BBC blog counts towards notability (after having jumped through hoops to view it as BBC Worldwide is not accessible from the UK, apparently we are not part of "the world"), but by itself it is not enough to establish notability per WP:N — "multiple sources are generally expected". All the rest of the sources are company listings or PR fluff. This may be notable one day, but right now it is WP:TOOSOON.

I would also like to comment that the long diatribe by Julia Williams123 against her opponents is just not acceptable here. It is cluttering the page and doing your case no good. It is the strength of policy based arguments that count, not what articles the participants have been editing, or anything else about them personally. SpinningSpark 19:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I don’t like to repeat myself but I would like to explain you once more regarding this issue of notability. Its notable simply because never anyone delivered a product like that before despite notes from Brightgalrs. Please note it’s not a designer’s concept or just idea. These are 5 engineered products by johanson3 company.

List of the articles listed below has nothing to do with PR fluff. They are from wellknown proven international resources. I like the way you guys critisize my article but you don’t know what you are talking about. Also regarding your comment about “diatribe by Julia Williams123 against her opponentsis just not acceptable” I consider that I have my right here like the author of the article to explain my work by adding valid arguments. If you do have an issue with innovation in mobility why using Wikipedia for it? You can complain to its inventor who owns intellectual property on his innovations. You seem to be rather desperate in trying trying to push always the same song by trying to impose personal views and issues with the topic which has nothing to do with the quality of the content of these articles which brings all the necessary proof of their reliability. Here is some statement of notability 1. This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career. I think it will be totally insain to challenge work done in the past by Johan Neerman and company Neerman Consulting which designed major transport systems worldwide. The product represents a unique accomplishment in the field as it was never creadted before. More over its patented for various technologies. Please pay attention its not passing along random gossip like you may say it’s the famous publications and reputable independent media sources. And article complies fair and balanced Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. They are not advertising a product their just tell why its notable and innovative. Before Writing just about BBC look at http://www.gizmodo.de/2014/09/09/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter.html http://www.techfieber.de/2014/08/31/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter-video/ http://www.industrie-techno.com/le-velo-solaire-qui-veut-remplacer-la-voiture.32282 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/innovative-approach-personal-mobility-launches-111400050.html Vorsatz William (October 2014). "Dreirad mit Solardach". Photovoltaik 99: 96. I hope this time I answer your questions and I dont see the point to keep going with the same idea as article contain not just BBC source. Read it carefully. If you don’t like the article or the product please note its not a reason to not recognize notability. Also the last but not the least note. Look at Notability there stated: “Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.” Please keep in mind that also. Best regards, your devoted Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Its notable simply because never anyone delivered a product like that before", that's not how Wikipedia defines notability and is not a valid argument for keeping a page. Please listen to what other people are telling you, no one is proposing deletion because they don't like the product, that is irrelevant and another pointless attack on fellow editors. Lemnaminor has already made an assessment of your sources and I am going along with that until there is some evidence to the contrary. SpinningSpark 21:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (struck duplicate !vote).Please read ones more definition of notability by Wikipedia and its connection with my subject :

1. This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career. I think it will be totally insain to challenge work done in the past by Johan Neerman and company Neerman Consulting which designed major transport systems worldwide. 2. The product represents a unique accomplishment in the field as it was never created before. More over it’s patented for various technologies. Please pay attention its not passing along random gossip like you may say it’s the famous publications and reputable independent media sources. Also the last but not the least note. Look at Notability there stated: “Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.” Please keep in mind that also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Williams123 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“Regarding pointless attack on fellow editors )))” Its what I see in my case. I just replying to justify and protect my article nothing personal. “This is a failed IndieGoGo project. It probably never should have been created anyway” Brightgalrs “In addition, Julia Williams123 seems to be a SPA with a very close connection to the subject” Lemnaminor

I see just negative erroneous and my fellow editors don’t look at the facts. Who is attacking? Best regards, your devoted Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and Lemnaminor's compelling analysis of the sources. Note: It appears that the same account was used to vote keeep twice. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with Lemnaminor's point. LeSoir article is destined to speak about the creator behind the johanson3 series. If you do understand French you will see that the inventor has notable background by designing various transport systems in Europe which is recognized worldwide. Following that some statement of notability This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career.

The Name of Johan Neerman is clearly identifiable in this article. You can also follow that the same person is the creator of the range of the johanson3 e-bikes and the creator of the company. The link to Website provided proves that the company exists and in good standing. It is not a company directory that you may consider not verified it’s a government website with all data registration. Regarding articles in Gizmodo, Techfieber, Yahoo, Industrie–techno, photovoltaic and others they were all written by different editors. You can find the name of the editors. Yes indeed they all talk about johanson3 like a new way of transportation but they are not like you call identical as they are put by different editors and in different languages nothing to do with a copy of press release. All links provided above proves the information to be only of a professional nature with no personal point of view. [[User:Julia Williams123 |Julia Williams123] — Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge, probably to Johan Neerman or to a new section Johan Neerman#Johanson3 and leave redirects behind, and possibly protect the redirects from editing by non-administrators. The product seems pretty cool. However it is wp:TOOSOON to be covered separately in Wikipedia, as there seem to exist only press-release-type coverage, not reliable source (wp:RS)-type reviews by others. If the product is so great (which it does look like it might be, in my non-professional opinion), then it will eventually get wp:RS type coverage. But Wikipedia needs to follow, not lead, in giving out info, and should generally state what secondary/tertiary sources say about something. The main characteristic of the product is that it has a great design, attributed to designer Johan Neerman, and asserted by Julia Williams123 above to be "a major part of his career". So, why not create a section about this great design in Johan's article. And redirect from Johanson3 to there, for now, at least until separate notability of Johanson3 becomes established. This preserves edit history, better for the record if/when notability is established. I then suggest that Julia Williams123 or other editors plan to create a future, better article in the Articles For Creation wp:AFC process, in the future, to replace the redirect, eventually, assuming reliable sources are given so that AFC editors will approve the new article. I think this is best... --do ncr am 00:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with the "merge" suggestion. This particular product is not yet out of the starting gate, so adding the information to the page for Johan Neerman (where other products are also listed) gives it a holding place for now. Should the product gain notability, it can be separated out. LaMona (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

-->

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarsus Group plc}}<!--Relisted-->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wakes (band)}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanson3}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanson3}}--><!--Relisted-->