Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 June	2 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is clearly for the article to be retained. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brew City Shooter Supply

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

The article itself doesn't bother to make a claim to notability, but this shop was once in the news. It was formally called "Badger Guns." In 2010, the Brady Center center named it the No. 1 shop in the U.S. that sold guns to criminals.[1] It no longer sells guns. I think this is covered under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. 2NewEvolution1 (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong/speedy keep A local gun store, mentioned by the brady campaign, the wall street journal, MSNBC, and multiple books [2] [3] and multiple scholarly articles [4] [5] Not sure what version of WP:GNG the nominator is thinking of here... At a minimum a WP:BEFORE failure, including not reading the multiple refs already in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's pretty rare for one gun shop in a community to be called out for selling crime guns in a city, but this is definitely one and a source of tension in Milwaukee. Subject has been in the news multiple times based on just gun traces, and for their many name changes and ownership shuffles to stay in business. Sourcing is not an issue, and nominator stunted nomination by adding another source in their nom. Nate • (chatter) 03:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons stated above, although I know of three others that meet this criteria.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment As all !votes have been keep, and Nominator has now been blocked as a sockpuppet who was wikihounding me, which makes this eligible for speedy close as bad faith, if someone cares to do so. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per this blanking edit; user clearly made non-controversial edits solely to get auto-confirmed status and then start on this. Not closing this myself though. Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All India Station Masters' Association

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

non notable trade union.In my opinion even if there are are more than 1000 members it cannot be considered notable unless it has significant press coverage.If such a page is encouraged then all such trade unions of government departments will be motivated to get their own page Uncletomwood (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many news references such as this one from the Times of India: [6]. The union's role in such strikes as the 1974 railway strike in India has been noted in at least two books: [7], [8]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 08:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit–Murder Inc. feud

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

Non-notable "beef" not covered substantially in reliable sources. I should note that the article lists one source as a different one three times. Beerest355 Talk 02:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Consider possible merge.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are any of the two sources provided reliable? Rapcentral is only one source which doesn't appear to be reliable, and the other link is a fansite. Beerest355 Talk 19:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources note the dispute. If it's not independently notable it should be merged/ redirect to 50 Cent feuds. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, those seem to be more fan coverage, but I guess they'd work. But since most of the info on the page is fancruft and the noteworthy stuff is already at 50 Cent feuds, I'm going to stand by my vote. Nothing special about this feud that makes it deserve its own page outside of any other feud. Beerest355 Talk 20:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Major League Soccer on television. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MLS Wrap

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

Article stub not notable. And all relevant info is already on Major League Soccer on television. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or re-direct to Major League Soccer on television). The subject is far from the notability that would warrant an article. --Stormbay (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above comments. BirdbrainedPhoenix (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. I never even heard of this talk show. Should be a speedy deletion as far as I'm concerned. – Michael (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 09:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last Chance Garage

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

A 4 min. documentary short that has garnered no coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NOTFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOO SOON. The film has completed but apparently has received no coverage. Lacking confirmation of its screening, we have a failure of WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This 4 minute film was released a year ago, according to the article and IMDb. I don't see WP:TOOSOON or WP:NFF even applying. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is that IMDB does not actually tell us the film was released. The film's data page states the project moved from "in production" to "completed" and provides that the project had its "Status Updated: 30 June 2012"... but no release date. And apart from the short existing, other information in the article is unverifiable. I cannot find it shortlisted for an award at the Northern Nights Film Festival in London... and with apologies, I cannot even confirm in reliable sources that THAT festival even exists. Neither can I find reliable sources confirming this short being in any way involved with WorldKids International Film Festival.[9] I The AFD template's Find sources give us lots of false positives for businesses or television episodes by that same name.[10] In focusing the search, I include the film + director's name and find a lot of primary sources such as wordpress blogs speaking about how the film was "shortlisted" at various places, but nothing deemed as reliable. Same when including that of the "star".[11] We can watch the film online, but cannot independently confirm that it has screened at any festival anywhere. No disagreement from me that it definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NF and its sub-sections. For a film that has been completed, is unverifiable as being screened at festivals, theaters, or television, and has no coverage in reliable sources, I think that my acknowledging WP:NFF and TOO SOON and that this project has not yet but might one day receive coverage, are the kindest of considerations I might opine for this director self-described "documentary-style reality promo". A delete is a delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And okay... the "Northern Nights Film Festival" does exist, but itself fails our inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reichmuth & Co

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

Fails WP:CORP. None of the references have in depth coverage on the bank. There are many references on the web to this, but all are related to a single event, the shenanigans around Bernard Madoff; or are passing mentions. There are some press releases and interviews with company officers but they aren't independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets GNG. The assertions in the nomination are incorrect. There are a number of articles (albeit primarily in languages other than English) devoted to coverage of the bank, that are far more than passing mentions. Many of the references do not relate to the series of events concerning the investment in Madoff, the loss, and subsequent events relating thereto. Plus, this is the first private bank created in Switzerland in 80 years, one of only 12 Swiss unlimited liability banks, and referred to in the RSs as a prominent major player among Swiss hedge funds. It has billions of dollars of assets under management -- even post-Madoff. Despite the famed Swiss private bank code of secrecy, more than enough has been written on this bank. Clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be somewhat notable per guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major internationally known bank.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar · · 17:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salt and ice challenge

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

Unlike the "cinnamon challenge", which is well referenced and fairly popular, this article fails notability policy: all the references provided relate solely to people being injured from attempting this "challenge", which implies that they are stupid, not that the challenge itself is notable. These sources apply directly to self-inflicted behaviour which falls under self-harm, with the results of this "challenge" being frostbite, but the act of "sticking your hands in salty ice water to impress people" itself is not a notable event, just as "lighting a match" is not notable compared with the results of arson or burns. Also, because there are no reliable sources to support the medical viewpoints of this trivial "challenge" or examples showing that some people are harmed, whilst many are not, this article presently falls under WP:UNDUE, as it only presents the "challenge" as dangerous, and the risk-factor seems fairly hyperbolically stated. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets ample coverage in reliable sources such as the CBS report. [12] Dream Focus 09:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational. — Cirt (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (reluctantly): I don't see why this is important, but there seem to be multiple reliable sources discussing it in some depth, so it meets basic criteria, I believe. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InternMatch

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

Advertisement, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 general opinion here is that this individual has received just about enough non-routine coverage to be considered notable. The consensus is not particularly strong, though, as it's clear it's not entirely agreed as to what constitutes routine coverage in this context. ~ mazca ^talk 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Nam

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and only routine sports reporting for coverage so he fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gained notability through the contract controversy with Bellator and his top ten ranking in the Bantamweight division. Most of his references are, in fact, not routine sports coverage. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references are either routine sports or BLP1E since they're about his contract dispute.Mdtemp (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The contract dispute is just one facet of his notability. WP:BLP1E is for non-notable people who happen to be in a single news cycle for their participation in a single event. He's also notable for his victory over a top-tier organizations' champion (Eduardo Dantas) and his nine or so months as a top ten ranked fighter. Just look on Google News and you'll see plenty of non-trivial stories, interviews, bios etc. Luchuslu (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't meet any notability standards, coverage seems routine (except for contract dispute).204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Entity of the Void (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm suggesting a weak keep simply because I heard that he was ranked in the top 10 in his division after he KO'd Bellator's champion, now I can't verify this but if someone can prove it to be true then him once ranking in the top 10 is just as strong as him taking 3 fights for a top tier fighter. Add it to the page as well and state it on this page otherwise no-one can review their opinion on it. 109.156.233.119 (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Subjective ratings are not the best way to determine notability, especially when other criteria already exist. I don't think Nam actually meets any of the existing notability criteria, but he has some things that support notability claims. There is some non-routine coverage of him (regarding his contract dispute) and he did defeat Bellator's reigning world champion (albeit in a non-title bout). Papaursa (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GameKnot

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

Article contains no assertion of notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, because there is quite some results in the Google News Archive search. EditorE (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources appear to contain nothing more than just passing references to GameKnot. Can you show any that discuss primarily GameKnot? Toccata quarta (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no secondary sources to establish notability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has no sources that are independent of the subject two weeks after the AFD nomination. If it is possible for the article to meet WP:GNG requirements, no one has stepped up to demonstrate it yet. Quale (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, there is ample coverage in the Google News archive including several NYT articles.Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that discuss primarily GameKnot? The ones I saw contained only passing mentions. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have any luck finding sources at all. All I saw in the GNews search was GameKnot's own website. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 00:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's pretty thin once you dig down. :( Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no real sources after a Google search. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Da Dope Game 2 Da Rap Game

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

A not notable independently released "album". Clearly fails WP:NALBUMS. A check of Billboard.com shows that the album never charted and has not been covered by reliable sources. STATic message me! 15:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seconded. Non notable, non charting, fails WP:NALBUMS. Chimpfunkz (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think its possible to find reliable sources for an independent album, released 13 years ago. Koala15 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary. If it were notable, it would be possible still to locate sources (which I have not done). —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note to Keep !Voters: Neither WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC have quotations in the media as an indication of notability. The guidelines call for either wide citation in academic papers or detailed profiles in independent media, neither of which is fulfilled here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Ghorbani

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

Only independent claim of notability is being quoted one time in the New York Daily News. The rest of the cited references are promotional for either the individual or his medical practice. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC; his citations at Google Scholar are minimal. Fails WP:GNG; he is occasionally quoted in the media (I found one other instance, from NBC News), but there is nothing significantly ABOUT him. The article is basically promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable through multiple reliable sources quoting him as a doctor / medical health expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhargavi RC (talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ghorbani is notable and meets general notability guidelines. He is on multiple reliable sources including CNN, Business Wire, and NY Daily News. Ghorbani is also certified by the American Board of Anesthesiology. LAHealthVol (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has several publications that deem him notable. Internationalpanda36 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete after two reslistings. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Sednev

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

How is this person notable enough for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan12w (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 20:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm confused about why you consider this non-notable since you never gave any reasons. A notable novel was written about him that mixes both fiction and fact. This book is also about him. There is also [13]. This person was not just an insignificant kitchen boy, but was a big help in reporting how an imperial family was murdered. How is someone who brought us such important details due to be being a witness as well as have two books about him non-notable? SL93 (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt per G12 by Jimfbleak. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octadecimal Classification

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

Apparent COI editor seems to be promoting their own work. The references are dubious. This same article was created twice before as a copyvio of the author's own web site here. The content has since been removed from the COI editor's website, but may still be a copyvio. No evidence of this subject being notable. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 01:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, apparent COI and, IMHO, original research too failing GNG. Me too I've found the same blog. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: original research, self-promotion, and in no sense an encyclopedia article, but rather an essay. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have trouble even understanding what this is about, at first I figured it be a numbering system, then a library system, now I have absolutely no clue. IF this is a topic we should have an article on, it needs some massive TNT. Charmlet (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Ultraexactzz per CSD R2, with comment "Page was (mostly) userfied." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WrappedHersheys.com

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

This was moved from Articles for Creation by the creator without a review. I found no notability for this company. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember deleting this in the past and moving a copy to the editor's userspace over issues of notability. Another of the speedy reasons was that it read like a promotional article, although the user had removed a lot of the worst of it. I know that this was a project for school, so I wanted to give them something they could work on. In any case, this just isn't a notable company. There are trivial mentions here and there, but nothing that would really count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Tokyogirl79. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author attempted to userfy this, but moved it to User:WrappedHersheys.com (a nonexistant user). I moved it back to their userspace at User:Eromansky/Sandbox. I also deleted the cross namespace redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kalinski

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

No sources apparently. The rather excessive list of external links which were in the article [14], do not mention Matt Kalinsky. From google scholar, H-Index is about 7, the calculation in the last AfD was based on adding a biologist in as well. I'm amazed that a BLP with no sources and where no sources were presented during AfD managed to close as no consensus last time, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (for a while). I also find a GS h-index of 7 in a well cited field. Totally inadequate to pass WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A h-index of 7 (which is also what I calculate) isn't enough for WP:PROF, and we already have the Trojan wave packet article to cover his main research topic. Searching finds nothing else that even remotely suggests notability. Incidentally, I note that his name is actually Maciej Kaliński, and that he no longer seems to be involved with academia. -- 202.124.88.41 (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article claims Kaliński "discovered" Trojan wave packets. The article on that topic doesn't say so, however, and the first (1994) article on the topic ("Lagrange equilibrium points in celestial mechanics and nonspreading wave packets for strongly driven Rydberg electrons") has Kaliński as the middle of three authors. -- 202.124.88.41 (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and delete Just to feed you some more bibliometric data. Scopus gives 3 papers by M. Kalinski, with 10 citations in total and h-index=2 (note that Scopus is not the best with pre-1995 papers), whereas Web of Knowledge (ISI, Thomson Reuters) lists 12 papers (Kalinski is the first author of 7 of them), 2 conference communications and 1 reply to the letter-to-editor, with 294 citations in total and h-index=7. I'm not much into physiscs, but I do assume that these aren't extraordinary academic achievments. Rather normal; nothing fancy. Therefore without good, external sources to prove his notability, I see here only a regular PhD, doing a regular science.Masur (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. It appears that his discovery, Trojan wave packets, is notable, but its notability does not automatically pass to him per WP:NOTINHERITED, especially because it was work done while he was a student and it is difficult to disentangle his contribution from that of his advisor and more notable coauthor Joseph H. Eberly. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the contributions of his coauthor Iwo Bialynicki-Birula, who was first author of that 1994 paper cited above. That was the paper which actually defined the concept, and which assigned the name when it stated "Such nonspreading wave packets are direct quantum analogs of the clusters of Trojan asteroids orbiting the Sun near the stable Lagrange points L4 and L5." It's clear that Kalinski contributed to the topic during his PhD, but it does not seem that he "discovered" it. -- 203.171.196.24 (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Matt Kalinski cannot pass WP:PROF in that sense and he works privately. He entered the US on student visa F-1 with Polish passport. This visa implies that he had to leave US to Poland 10 day after graduation. Poland however requires that all Professors have to have President of Poland nomination. US PhD cannot be under Polish President and he must work privately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattedia (talk • contribs) 07:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that means, but certainly he is working privately, in some capacity that doesn't seem to be generating further publications. -- 203.171.196.24 (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm really hoping you're not Matt Kalinski (WP:AUTO). -- 203.171.196.24 (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the possible conflict-of-interest, I'm confused by Mattedia's comment, because it is labeled keep but it seems to be arguing that he is not notable. In any case it is certainly possible for people not employed as academics to pass WP:PROF. I could cite examples but I think that would be a distraction. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is possible for people not employed as academics to pass WP:PROF (except #5 and #6), but the dearth of Google hits suggests that Kalinski is not currently employed in any WP:PROF-passing way. All we have to go on are his existing publications, which seem to me insufficient. -- 202.124.73.20 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. No evidence that subject meets the requirements of any notability guideline, especially WP:PROF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asuman Güzelce

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

Does not seem notable, text is confusing e.g "born in" The ChampionMan 1234 00:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Up to now, I haven't heard her name. But in yahoo search there are more than 200 links to her name. Since she was the recipient of a literary prize, maybe we shouldn't rush to delete the article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Turkish google returns some good sources[15]--Iniciativass (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Un pecado por mes

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

Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG Uberaccount (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've given the article a few tweaks, and will await input from Wikipedians able to find and offer reviews in 65 year-old Argentinian newspapers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Argentinian film with notable participants. Released on DVD in last several years. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 160 hits in google books, http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=sv&q=%22Un+Pecado+Por+Mes%22 --Soman (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Heathside Athletics Club

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

fails WP:ORG and GNG. article has one primary source. and no substantial coverage in gnews. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- It mayt not yet be a good article, but we have articles on six other (apparently similar) clubs in London and a lot more nationwide. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GNews archive and Gbooks are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G5 - created by a sockpuppet of User:Morning277 JohnCD (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Brian Dawe

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

References are self-published sources. Fails WP:GNG Iniciativass (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable person per WP:N, WP:R and WP:ARTIST--Benfold (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article was created by a sock User:Sublimeharmony--Iniciativass (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Label Comics

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

This now defunct collective of webcomics was always less notable than the individual webcomics that it was made of. The collective itself (rather than the member comics acting independently) seems not to have done much to pass WP:42. LukeSurl^{t c} 09:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Books suggests the term may be mentioned in few works; discounting printed Wikipedia spamforks, search for "Blank Label Comics" still suggests a dozen or so sources to review. The mention may be simply passing, but nonetheless I'd like to see somebody check at least T. Campbell (2006). A History of Web Comics, V 1.0: The Golden Age: 1993-2005. Antarctic Press. ISBN 978-0-9768043-9-0. Retrieved 24 June 2013. . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Association composed of notable elements. Seems worth including for posterity. How would deleting it improve the encyclopedia? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since http://www.blanklabelcomics.com/ went down the content of this article is effectively non-verifiable. --LukeSurl^{t c} 17:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The webcomics are notable, not this label. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^King Jakob _C2 11:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Timo Kahlen

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

Escalating from prod. Not a single award mentioned in text appears notable. Big list of external links none of which look mainstream. A few references cited in a book format, none of which I can verify, and which could well be just exhibition uncatalogued or such. Definitely needs opinion from a German speaker to verify sources/comment on notability in German-language net. A German speaker may want to AfD de:Timo Kahlen to get input from de Wiki editors. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article can do with some sorting the references from the German counterpart convinced me of its notability. While I did not remember the name of the artist I certainly can remember the presscoverage of the cleaner incident in Amberg. Agathoclea (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC) P.S.: de:Deutscher Klangkunst-Preis seems relevant on deWiki Agathoclea (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above discussion indicating substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Nasedkin

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

Escalating from prod. Not a single award mentioned in text appears notable. No inline cites. Big list of a lot of stuff, none of which look mainstream; that includes a long list of "bibliography" which likely is heavily composed of a passing mention in tiny circulation exhibition catalogs or such. Needs opinion from a Russian speaker to verify sources/comment on notability in Russian-language net. Can't verify if a ru wiki article exists as the creator did not add the subject name in Cyrillic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per exhibitions and breadth of showings at institutions. A review by a Russian editor would certainly be helpful. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YaNabi.com

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

The only sources are alexa info, a source not even talking about his site itself but citing the statement that other such websites exist, and two passing mentions of comments on the site's discussion forum. In this case, it fails both criteria of WP:WEBCRIT as well as WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The mentions of the content in some sources (there's a couple more in GScholar) do very little regarding WEBCRIT, and there's simply no significant coverage available about the website itself. — Frankie (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I've found the name of this website on some blogs and forums but it doesn't establish notability.Farhikht (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genius Inside

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

Previously deleted late last year as non-notable. Article seems sufficiently different to not be speedy eligible, so asking community to evaluate. Camw (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable through multiple reliable sources citing it as international project management software and technology awards. Botidr 08:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete As far as I can tell, the awards are for software within the Lotus Notes community, not for project management software in general. This is not sufficient for notability. Since the WSJ article seems to be merely an announcement of the awards, I'm not sure its relevant for notability either. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wall Street Journal and multiple other awards should be enough on this one for notability. FifthCircuit (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again broadly as per my position on the previous AfD. The WSJ piece that has been added is attributed there to "Marketwired" which describes itself as a "Newswire service for online press release distribution" [16] and is an announcement of an award from TopTenREVIEWS; neither the award nor the press release are clear evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though a few references should be cleaned up, subject received multiple awards deeming notability and there are numerous reliable sources noting this project management software. Rhaulumajik (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not the most policy-based consensus, but the outcome is clear. Also nom is indeed blocked. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nawras Abu Saleh

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

This person only have a source to IMDB which is not that great of a reliable source, Plus, one role is not enough to be in Wikipedia. Ghostboy1997 (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you google the name in Arabic, you find quite a lot of different media having interviewed him or covered news about his work. --Soman (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -weak article, and needs a lot of work. Does it fail notability? Not really. Quite a bit of foreign-language coverage. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note:nominating editor has been blocked recently on account of being a sock. Just throwing it out there. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Morais Alvares

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

Fails WP:GNG, no indication in the article why he should be notable nor sufficient Google hits to give that indication. The Banner talk 18:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried searching for results in Spanish and Galician, but there's only a couple of passing mentions from news sources, and the rest are reproductions from the party's website. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Derevenko

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

I did a Google search and can't find much about him. His dad's notability is even in question with me, but I can see improving that article and maybe including something about Kolya in there. I don't believe he merits an article of his own. Dan12w (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 20:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing here. Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much not sourced information and no notability evidence, single interview doesn't grant it. Ignatus (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only notability that's even really being claimed here is his family relationship to another person of uncertain notability — and notability is not inherited. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 02:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KTS/KPYM software

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

Open source SSH/telnet server. Fails to establish notability, no third-party references. The project has started on January 2011. (Proposed deletion removed by creator.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reviews or commentary in reliable sources, only download sites and a couple of forums. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The sourcing arguments are compelling. Sorry, but "I know I've read about this in magazines and stuff" is one of the least stringently argued arguments I've come across at AfD recently. Any redirect can be created as deemed editorially appropriate. Sandstein 06:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Through the Grand Canyon

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

This is a neat and classic musical composition and midi file, but I wasn't surprised that I couldn't find any independent sources about or mentioning this composition (or even Canyon.midi, which all I could find were blog posts about or mentioning it). The only reason why so many people know about it (and probably why some people think its a notable song) is because it was a midi file that was part of early versions of the Windows computer. The background section of this article is entirely unsourced, but I hoping that some user will put citations on it (though I not entirely sure it's enough for this article to be eligible for inclusion), so I could start having the feeling that this song is notable enough to be here. But simply put, the article fails WP:NSONG entirely. End of story. EditorE (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I know I've read about this in magazines and stuff. Will see what I can find. Andrevan@ 21:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you did, and I'm sure what you just said is ~~WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS~~ WP:JNN. EditorE (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Redirect - While it seems like it should be notable since it was part of the early versions of Windows, all that I can find on it is a couple of blog posts about it that probably wouldn't meet verifiability standards. On one of them, George Stone supposedly commented on how and why he wrote it, and it seems pretty legit, but still, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/possible merge to Microsoft Windows - notability isn't inherited, and this little song doesn't have independent coverage of its own. Ansh666 20:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no sources

Johann von Holthov-Chikoff

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

A biographical article about a 19th Century Russian writer that, as far as I can see, fails both notability and verifiabilty criteria. Apart from a recently-created corresponding entry on Spanish Wikipedia here, there are no Google hits whatsoever. The article asserts that the subject was a close friend of Pushkin, so it is not unreasonable to assume the name would appear in at least one biography of Pushkin, if only mentioned in passing, but there are no results on Google books, nor are there results for any of the works attributed to the subject. The only source offered is an autobiography from 1861, but again, there are no results for this work. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching this is going to be a problem, because of translation and transliteration difficulties. To search adequately, it's going to be necessary to reconstruct the Russian titles of the books. (and the Russian spelling of the author's name). DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that transliteration issues are a problem here, although there are issues of sourcing as if the one and only source offered for this article is the memoirs of the subject, WP:RS wouldn't be satisfied. However, even allowing for transliteration problems, I think it is a source of concern that the only online mentions of the works of the subject is one of them being used as a source for an article on Spanish Wikipedia (on the Jakov family), created by the author of this article. I know I am stepping over the boundaries of WP:AGF here, but the only reason I am not challenging that article on Spanish Wikipedia is my lack of Spanish; there are very significant problems with that article particularly with sources and with the use of images, where an image purporting to be of a 16th-Century nobleman is actually a greyscaled and horizontally-flipped image of a 19th Century image of a Cossack. (If you want to compare the images: this is the image uploaded by the editor here and here is the 19th-Century image on Wikpedia here. I noticed the similarity when I saw this edit removing the 19th-Century image from the English Wikipedia article on Don Cossacks. (There is a second image on Wikipedia that has suffered the same fate: compare this image of a Boyar from the 17th Century with this image of the purported 16th Century Count_Aleksandr_Nikolayevich_Jakov ) So, in for a penny, in for a pound: as I have already questioned the intentions of the article creator, I'll go on to suggest this article is a step in the creation of a false genealogy for the Jakov family on Wikipedia. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even with my limited knowledge of Spanish, it is obvious that someone is trying to graft the oddly unrecorded Jakov noble family on to very well known family trees. The Spanish article, for example, has the founder of the Jakov family as an illegitimate son of Lengvenis - by a mother whose surname appears not once on the internet. Highly suspicious per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and per WP:DUCK. I suggest that all of contributions of the SPA editor who created this article be purged. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

on the internet ? the mother of an illegitimate Lithuanian noble child from the 15th century? I find nothing exceptional in a Lithuanian noble family--and there were a great many of them--being ultimately related to a royal illegitimate progeny. it may or not not be historically accurate, but it's not suspicious. It may be a total fraud, or just the sort o over ambitious family geology we see a lot of here.

But we're discussing this particular person, and the question is whether we can find the Russian books, if we can reconstruct their titles. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my point. I am not surprised that the supposed ancestress of the alleged Jakovs is not mentioned anywhere online; I am surprised that her surname does not appear anywhere - an authentic Russian or Ruthenian patronymic surname should get some Google-hits, no? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No such person ever existed. Yet another hoax from User:LordCarisbrooke who should be indefblocked for his pranks.--Ghirla^-трёп- 07:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have a look at this blog-post, especially at the name of the author: Realeza y Nobleza Rusa. This should give us other questionable families to look out for... הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayward Forest Canoe Route

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

WP is not a travel guide book, as per WP:NOTGUIDE. If the canoe routes are notable on their own, a section on canoe travel should be added to Sayward Valley. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sayward Valley, or send it over to Wikivoyage. TheBlueCanoe 02:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Valley Community Hospital

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

Non-notable local hospital. Insufficient independent sources from which to draw a verifiable article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. the gnews coverage is passing. and not all hospitals are notable. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep Hospital was formed from two historic and notable hospitals. This is an important subject to the community's history. Should not be deleted. Article can certainly be improved. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strongest possible keep? I would have saved that for water or Barack Obama. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The article can only be improved if sources can be found from which to improve it. I was unable to find any. If Candleabracadabra (nice name, by the way!) is more successful than I, I will applaud xyr efforts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many articles from the past 100 - 126 years aren't available online. But I am sure the libraries in Peru can assist. I just don't see that there's any question that a community's major hospitals (now joined into one) are nonnotable. How many births, deaths, etc. have taken place there? How many victims of major accidents and crimes in the area have been taken to the hospitals (there are plenty of sources covering some of these instances from more recent events). And then there are articles like [25,000 Watch 2,500 Nurses Stage Parade‎] from the Chicago Tribune May 22, 1954 about how "the nursing nuns from St. Mary's hospital of La Salle county" attracted attention. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall. But we know that lots of these sources exist. There are also articles like this one about legislative impacts on the hospital. There is also the architectural history to consider. Etc. etc. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, the kind of coverage Candleabracadabra is discussing are mere mentions in passing. When a news report tells of a victim being brought to a hospital for treatment, or that nurses from a hospital are on parade, that report rarely gives an in-depth history of the hospital. Without such in-depth coverage, from what sources are we to draw verifiable information about the hospital? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about mere mentions. I'm talking about substantial coverage that isn't available online. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a postcard of one of the two historic hospitals covered in the article and here is just one example of the substantial coverage the hospital has received. There's 126 years worth and the subject shouldn't be discriminated against just because WikiDan can't be bothered to access the many offline sources available in libraries. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill hospital. Sources are local and do not cover the hospital substantially enough. If other sources can be found in libraries, then this article can be recreated. Beerest355 Talk 22:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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