Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 November	9 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Perlis FA season

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

Delete per consensus at this recent AfD, which established that season articles should follow the same notability guidelines as the players, i.e. fully professional leagues only. C 679 09:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 09:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages under the same criteria:

C 679 09:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per nom and previous consensus. Giant Snowman 10:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk - Hi C. I wonder why you nominated 2013 Penang FA season for deletion. The article is full of information based on events happen to Penang Football Association in 2013. This below articles completely blank compared to 2013 Penang FA season but why it's still here? I completely disagree with your action :

2001 Kelantan FA season

2002 Kelantan FA season

2003 Kelantan FA season

2004 Kelantan FA season

2005 Kelantan FA season

2005-06 Kelantan FA season

2006-07 Kelantan FA season

2007-08 Kelantan FA season

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TorresChelsea96 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per the rationale above, because it relates to a season in a non-fully professional league. I haven't looked at the other articles you linked but other stuff exists. C 679 11:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - WP:NSEASONS is quite clear that season articles should only be for clubs in top professional leagues. There is no consensus that the Malaysian Premier League is fully professional and so the articles should go. It would also appear that the Kelantan articles should also be deleted under the same rationale. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pingler.com

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

A seven-employee firm. I don;t see how it can possibly be notable. , and the article provides no evidence to show otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7 and/or WP:G11. All the sources are primary, listings, or blogs. A very small organisation purporting to be an SEO company, ostensibly trying do do their own SEO by using Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG - this is what we get from too many paid editors. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gascoigne Leather Furniture

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: recreation of a previously deleted article. Although this makes claims to importance, no independent 3rd party sources have been suppled that assert notability per WP:ORG. Notability is not inherited from notable customers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't notice any qualifying sources on my first run-through when the article was created, but now I found two, in the New Zealand Herald and the Melville Times. Is two a sufficient number? Yes, having famous people among your customers doesn't confer notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the Melville times is local coverage and looks a bit advertorial, it even gives the company's phone number. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many more references are needed for it to be considered notable?Lucy4962 (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC) — Lucy4962 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's not a question of the number of references. It depends on the depth of coverage in the references and whether the sources are reliable or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to clarify, it wouldn't be a question of how many more because right now there aren't any references to independent reliable sources. The company's own website isn't an independent source, and the other two references given are not sources because the company isn't mentioned at either location. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone's added a bunch of fresh references. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources:

Museum Not reliable. Blog.

Comment - this is not a 'blog' but an extract from the Welcome Wall project prepared by the Western Australian State Government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

[1] Not reliable. Blog.

Comment - this is a copy of an article by the Australian Associated Press - Australia's national news agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

Agree with Dan arndt unless there's a reason to think the blog invents articles and attributes them to the AAP. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BN Not relevant. Does not add to notability.

Comment - it is relevant to the issue that the facility was subject to a major fire - which alomost resulted in the closure of the business — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

Agree with Dan arndt The site's down for maintenance at the moment but what I recall seeing last night when I looked at it was that the write chose Gascoigne as an example to illustrate the point of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gascoigne website primary source
[$File/19910514_Assembly.pdf transcript of a day's business in parliament. How much of this pdf do we need to read to find a fleeting mention?]

Comment - if you read the reference citation correctly it indicates the exact page - which indicates that the Minister Gordon Hill considers Gascoigne Furniture to be a significant exporter of Western Australian furniture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

BN extremely fleeting mention

Comment - clearly identifies that Gascoiyne Furtniture is the largest manufacturer of Chesterfield leather lounges in the Southern Hemisphere and exports to 14 countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

Mildly agree with Dan arndt Again, the BN site is down for maintenance and I didn't check it out before, but this seems significant to me. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melville local news blog

Comment - a local newspaper is not a blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

The Age possible reliable source

Comment - The Age newspaper is a reputable independent source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

The New Zealand Herald possibly reliable. Not in-depth coverage.

Comment - reinforces the earlier reference that Gascoiyne Furtniture supplied furniture to Prince Charles from another reputable independent source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

Agree with Dan arndt on this one, this was a verification source, not a notability source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Henry transcript of an after dinner speech by a local MP. Very fleeting mention.

Comment - this is an extract from the Hansard Report from the Western Australian State Parliment - not a transcript of an after dinner speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

This looks like the typical result of scouring the internet for anything that contains the word Gascoigne and pasting it to the article. I'll leave it to the community to decide if these sources add to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Kudpung's analysis. the sources are very weak and not indepth or reliable. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about if i add photos from the company's relationship with Lady Diana and John Howard? I tried to upload when the article was created but was told the account wasn't old enough etc? Lucy4962 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not valid, unfortunately. As previously mentioned, notability is not inherited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy4962, do you have a connection to the company? LibStar (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy, the issue being discussed here is the notability of the company much more than the verifiability of the claims. Even photos of Kim Gascoigne sharing a pizza with Lady Diana and John Howard at a table set up in front of the company's headquarters wouldn't help with the notability question. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep based on my comments above. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company is one of the largest furniture companies in Western Australia, with significant international exports around the world. It is a company that is notable for its quality chesterfield leather lounges, with significant clientele. Dan arndt (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification User:Dan arndt, FYI, factors taken into consideration in assessing notability for a company don't include the quality of its goods, the fame of its customers, or whether it's one of the largest manufacturers of a particular type of product in a particular political subdivision. Factors that are taken into consideration all have to do with whether the topic has attracted note as shown through significant coverage in independent reliable source. The factors you mention may have led to such significant coverage having occurred, in which case the article is includable on account of that coverage, but those factors don't directly establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell: "verifiability, not truth" is the basic deciding factor for notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed which is why the references I have added are all from independently verifable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yrs, Dan, but not even all verifiable sources are ones that confer notability. They must have in-depth coverage, and notability is not inherited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that I believe Gascoigne Furniture has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - therefore confering notability. Significant coverage does mean that it has to be the main topic of the source material. Dan arndt (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you meant "does not mean", yes? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the grammar correction, I did mean 'does not mean' Dan arndt (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SpiderScribe

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

Promotional article that fails WP:GNG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. It is a clearly promotional written by Paid Editor socking across accounts Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:advert This is the sort of article that clearly is advertising, also WP:N Retartist (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is non-notable and clearly promotional. Novusuna ^talk 00:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Menchi per CSD G7, "The author/creator has blanked own page." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken E. Nwadike, Jr.

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

WP:NOTABILITY. The closest to a supportable claim of notability in this WP:AUTOBIO is the NAIA All-American Athlete, but it turns out that was an award for the entire relay team of which he was a member, and that doesn't seem to meet WP:NCOLLATH standards. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Omony

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

I don't believe Sunday Omony is notable enough either as a model or a TV host to warrant a wikipedia article.

As a TV host, she fits none of the criteria listed on WP:CREATIVE:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. - She is the host of a minor talk show on local cable, and does not even appear on her own station's website: http://shaw.ca/ShawTV/Calgary/Personalities/

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - No

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - No

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - No

As a model, she fits none of the criteria listed on WP:NMODEL:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. - No

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. - No

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - No Sonofacar (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~The AfD was incorrectly entered. There's no notice in the article. Not sure how to fix or what else might be wrong in the process.~~ Fixed by User:Taylor Trescott. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because from what I can see, she passes WP:GNG with the sources listed in the article. Any suggestion she doesn't? Not only is there coverage of her, there is coverage of the coverage! If she does, she doesn't also then need to pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:NMODEL. Additional criteria are designed to allow those subjects that might not pass WP:GNG to be considered notable for their contributions. A subject need not pass WP:GNG and an occupation-specific criteria. Stalwart111 03:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes our general notability guidelines. Here's just a sample of reliable secondary sources.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] -- SarahStierch (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG; nominator's only contribution was this nomination. Nate • (chatter) 20:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Fortunato

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

No notability separate from the work of fiction this hails from. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the WP:GNG. Does not receive significant coverage by independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified Wikia.[10] Please give them time to read the message and copy it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Keinszig

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

Notability is not established. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gets trivial mentions throughout several articles and books, but there's no evidence that significant coverage exists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Zaluchi

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

Utterly fails WP:GNG. Not a hugely important character, sources that exist are just plot recaps. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified Wikia.[11] Please give them time to read the message and copy it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article they already have is much better than this one (for a Wikia). I doubt there is much to copy. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Child's Play (film series). v/r - T P 21:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Barclay

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

Unremarkable fictional character, fails WP:GNG. Suggest that List of Child's Play characters be created. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was looking at this article the other day and was kind of surprised to see that this character hasn't attracted really any critical attention beyond noting his presence in the franchise. I don't believe a character list is necessary since without reliable sources that discuss the individual characters such a list would only be a rehash of the films' plots. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Child's Play (film series) or delete. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage, either. I guess nobody remembers the little kid from the films when Chucky is so popular. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 04:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeprint Verification

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

May not meet WP:NSOFT.

Note, article was contributed by someone whose username is the same as the company's name, but has been rewritten by me. —rybec 02:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, It does follow WP:NSOFT, it is being tried as an alternative to passports.JDgeek1729 (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JDgeek1729's version of the article was about iris recognition, which is is a widely-used technique that is distinct from Eyeprint Verification. As explained in the original version of the article, the latter is "exclusive" to one company, Eyeverify, and is based on scanning the whites of the eyes, not the irises. —rybec 03:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now, likely WP:TOOSOON. I will admit to being somewhat biased against the article in any form because of the bad taste left in my mouth by the original version. It will be a few weeks or months before I'm neutral towards this topic. The closing administrator should take my lack of objectivity into account. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs to be expanded on and have more sources, otherwise delete.TomKoenig (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon. Policy is to not include articles on speculation only. Once something is announced and covered by enough press to be notable, then perhaps try again. Could userify in the meanwhile. W Nowicki (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable software, per WP:SPECULATION and WP:TOOSOON. Alex^{discussion ★} 20:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 21:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage share of operating systems

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

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

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

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

WP:NOT Information is by definition constantly out of date. Not an encyclopedic topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might make sense to move info to pages on individual OSes/topics - e.g. it's reasonable in Windows 7 to discuss its comparable market share; same for Android, etc. But I think historical data on OS share would be an encyclopedic topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even when not up to the minute current, the article can show long term trends, and changes over history. The topic is by itself covered well enough to have its own article, and is an important aspect of our coverage of the topic of operating systems. — daranz [ t ] 14:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article seems much more up to date and better sourced than average in this project, although that is not sufficient reason by itself. As above, historical data seems fine, and the OS-specific articles seem to get unwieldy pretty quickly. Although with the divergence in platforms over the past few years, there is a bit of subject creep in this one. Should give benefit of the doubt to keep. W Nowicki (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is the least out of date for Web clients and Summary (I maintained it for years each month). I agree that we should complete with historical data and not only *spot* data. Should give benefit of the doubt to keep. 20:44, 8 November 2013 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.24.147 (talk)
Keep. Even if the article is a bit heavy on statistics and somewhat out-of-date, it can still be fixed. This is a common topic in tech journals, and it would be easy to write an article that went more in-depth. I hate make an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, but even out-of-date statistics with limited commentary is pretty useful. At the very least, I think the usage stats should probably be merged into the appropriate articles (Linux, Microsoft Windows, OS X, etc). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Article is inherently too close to the topic. Wikipedia was never intended to be a news site always reporting the latest statistics Useerup (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it can be re-written to incorporate both long term trends and the most recent data it may prove useful and of interest, at the moment it looks as though large parts are just whatever was the most up-to-date info available at the time, and is now somewhat out of date. I would volunteer to comprehensively re-structure it myself, but I have not been able to find sufficient reliable statistics, not knowing where to look. Alternatively, if it is too small and unecyclopaedic a topic to warrant its own article, perhaps a section within Operating System? 213.104.128.16 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Intersting and useful! --91.229.57.240 (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All Wikipedia articles are potentially out of date - but not nearly as badly so as in a print encyclopedia. There are many people who work together keeping this information as clear and as up to date as possible. As time goes by, the article becomes more interesting and encyclopedic as older information is condensed and summarised to make way for new, developing a background level that provides more richness and de[pth for the reader. --Nigelj (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helpful information, lots of of sources - no reason for deletion. 92.225.88.125 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Kind of withdrawn by nominator. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary School District

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

Elementary schools are rarely notable, and the districts which they are a part of are actually less notable, as they are just an office for coordination of the various schools. not every govt org gets an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I agree with nominator's assessment of the lack of notability of run-of-the-mill primary schools, l disagree regarding school districts. As the linked Google News archive search shows, these are elected bodies, often with hotly contested races, and they also often place multi-million dollar bond measures on the ballot, often highly controversial. Elementary school and middle school articles are often redirected to school district articles, so these articles help with Wikipedia's function as a gazeteer, which is mentioned specifically in the Five Pillars, our founding principles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Governments are inherently notable. In the US, school districts are governments and this district has been included in the most recent US Census of Governments (2012). This government will be mentioned in various budgets, educational studies, comparative analyses, and real estate analyses just like every other school district in the US. The baseline coverage of all school districts in the US exceeds Wikipedia notability standards. That erroneous assertions of government non-notability keep coming up seems to be showing a weakness in the guidelines. TMLutas (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . This does not fall within our practice of redirecting nn primary and middle schools. Besides which, we need somewhere to redirect them to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these are effectively local government bodies that raise large sums of money. Positions are elected and school districts have a high community profile. These articles also are a convenient repository for information about their constituent schools which, if middle or elementary are likely separately nn. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every school district in the U.S. is encyclopedic, as is every public school. WP:5 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of ... gazetteers."--Hjal (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - School district articles are the target for redirects when the inevitable (horrible) elementary school articles pop up. While no one of these schools is notable under our established consensus at AfD, the collective entity is. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close as keep from nominator. i wasnt really sure what to do with elementary/middle school DISTRICTS, but it seems like they are keepers, esp. to redirect school articles to. I had thought only school districts which included high schools made the cut, but the snow consensus is i was wrong. im cool with that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Somebody please close this now as speedy keep. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember The 13th Hoax

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

advertising through the backdoor The Banner talk 01:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 01:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. This article does not violate any Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines. Since this article has very recently been approved, Perhaps it needs more time to develop. Juiceentertainment (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC) — Juiceentertainment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well... a promotional article can always be cleaned up. I'll go through and remove the worst of the promotional prose so we can judge it on whether or not it passes notability guidelines. As far as an article passing AfC, I'll have to warn you Juice that this isn't always a guarantee of passing notability guidelines. It's a little bit of a sore subject on Wikipedia that a lot of articles can pass AfC but not pass the main guidelines for notability. There does seem to be an assertion of notability, but the bigger problem here seems to be a depth of coverage since almost all of the coverage is from a very short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfy. This did get some coverage, yes, but overall the coverage is fairly light. It spans a very brief point in time and much of the article coverage is brief in nature. A lot of it just repeats the same thing over and over again, which doesn't really give a depth of coverage regardless of how many brief articles you have. For comparison's sake, I'll hold up the AfD for the Ikea Monkey, something which easily received about 2-3 times the coverage that this website has, yet it didn't pass AfD either. The coverage just isn't here. I have no problem with someone userfying this for the time being, but I honestly doubt that this will gain any further coverage. What we have on the article currently seems to be the extent of the coverage in reliable sources and that's really only from a period of about 7 days. The internet seems to have largely ignored this website for the most part. It got attention and some views, but it's nowhere near as big as it'd need to be to really pass WP:GNG. I'd suggest a merge somewhere, but I don't really know any specific article that would really be appropriate. Viral marketing should really only have mentions that are overwhelmingly notable (ie, an article) and I'm a little leery about automatically adding every internet thing to List of Internet phenomena, as that turns it into an unwieldy and unmanageable list. It's not really an internet meme, so it can't be added to that list either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it was a PR stunt for music artist Beeki Vendi, it might be better to rename. Or userfy till he becomes notable if the coverage about him is insufficient. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Vendi is a relatively new performer, so there isn't enough out there for an article on him at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have good deal of source coverage, — Cirt (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although there seems to be coverage, I don't think that it is encyclopedic and fails notability guidelines. It is a one off, having no lasting effect gag to make some money that is pretty insignificant.- Pmedema (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No lasting significance; one-off stunt with ordinary coverage. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BFD. Carrite (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, The singer in the article Beeki Vendi, I did some research and found that he went under a different stage name "Yasha Swag" and he has news coverage. If you search "Yasha Swag" it's the same person who sings Purple Ninja...

http://popdust.com/2012/03/14/yasha-swag-go-go-go-viral-video/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/pickles-yasha-swag-cheating-youtube-views/ http://now.msn.com/will-yasha-swag-become-this-year%E2%80%99s-rebecca-black http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-12-07/okay-what-is-this-yasha-swag-pickles-video-all-about/ http://newmediarockstars.com/2012/12/internet-nonsense-yasha-swags-pickles-is-the-best-and-also-the-worst/ http://news.softpedia.com/news/Viral-of-the-Day-Yasha-Swag-Pickles-313398.shtml http://planet1051.com/yasha-swags-pickles-video-has-over-8-million-views-in-7-days-why-video/ http://entertainment.ie/wtf/Forget-Ultan-Sherry-say-hello-to-Yasha-Swag/155488.htm http://worldofwonder.net/terrible-viral-video-of-the-day-yasha-swags-pickles/ http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/beta-digital-column-29698038.html

It looks like he botted on his old videos but this time around he hoaxed the nasa website to get viral attention once again. I don't know if you guys think this is significant enough to add as an article? Or link it somehow with Remember The 13th?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Scott-Taggart

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

Essentially unreferenced, no real notability ES &L 01:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple Google search returns quite a large number of hits, plus also two book mentions. The subject seems to be of historical value, as evidenced if nothing else on the single link provided in the article. Here is his bio entry/authority control in the Library of Congress. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes he doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER but WP:SOLDIER is WP:BOLLOCKS anyway. OBE, MC, entry in Who's Who: [12], crashed his plane into the sea on Christmas Eve 1929 (as reported in the Times)... Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have only just undeleted this poor chap. I'll be referencing and updating the article progressively over the next couple of weeks (I have to dig out the published articles on him)+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coherers (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Asa Briggs and Brian Hennesey thought him notable, that should be enough for the rest of us. WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant here - that is really for career soldiers and those whose only claim to notability is in the fighting arm; his notability is as a technical expert in which capacity he served in the forces for part of his career, which his entirely different. --AJHingston (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article needs wikifying and more detail. I would like to read more about "father of the transistor radio". If true, that alone would make him notable; similarly oversight of radar in Britain in WWII.

Sorry forgot to sign this. Peterkingiron (talk)

Keep -- (A. Carty (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
{{trout}} nominator and keep. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Hennesy and Brigs sources strongly suggest notability though they are not in depth and and only two. The article contained some serious WP:PUFF calling him a "father of wireless and radio" which no source even comes close to saying, and even if one source did it would not be enough to establish such a massive claim putting him alongside Marconi. In fact the sources seem to portray him as an authority in Britain on the "wireless valve" (whatever that is) and for his journalism work. The article should reflect what the sources say. Contrary to the wet trout, I think the nom was right to look at this one askew considering the condition it was in at the time and the incredulous claim "one of the fathers of wireless and transitor radios" completely unsourced. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and continue to fix it. An old aphorism goes, "AfD is not for cleanup." Bearian (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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