Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 October	3 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Lark

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

Non-notable actor lacking ghits and Gnews. reddogsix (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous status of "non-notable actor lacking ghits and Gnews" was immediately generated after the page was created with a short paragraph about the actor (her name and the information that she is an actress). Minutes later, more information, references and links were added.--Vivinabel (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Solid credits in theater and screen in 3 different countries. Interviewed by newspapers and networks. Award-winning^[1].--AbiRed (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — AbiRed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The "newspaper interview" has nothing to do with the article subject and the "networks" item is a social media site that is currently down. Regardless neither provide adequate secondary references to support verifable, independent sourcing for the article. reddogsix (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The biography needs to be filled out but this recently written article (10/1/2013) has improved in the few days since being nominated and references have been added. It's a decent stub, I've seen actor stubs with 1/10 of the content this page has. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. As an aside, I think it's crazy that 8 minutes after this article is posted on to Wikipedia, it gets a PROD, then nominated as a AfD. Articles aren't expected to be B- or C-Class minutes after they're created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just how has the article been improved. I don't see a plethora of support for the article or even a small smattering of verifable, independent non-trivial support for the article - actually to be honest the majority of references are IMDB or self-generated. No one is asking for a completed article at inception, but where are the references that support notability?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 October 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) 15:06, 10 October 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) 15:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can anyone comment on whether any of her roles have been significant, as required by WP:NACTOR? It doesn't look like it, but I'm not familiar with many of the roles listed. I can't find any mention of her on Google, either. The award listed earlier seems to be for the web series, not her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 18 October 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-deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circular gear helicopter

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

WTF not notable. At best a paragraph in a helicopter description article, apart from that the content is almost meaningless. Petebutt (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't make sense?? Probably the worst written article I have ever seen :-)Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The prose makes sense--drive trains are an important part of a helicopter's mechanical design--but the article seems to exist solely to promote the author's invention of an alternative drive train. I was unable to find any other sources about this design, so I believe this topic fails notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. A non-notable topic and a promotional article suggest deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This article is all over the place; per Deathlibrarian, it really doesn't make sense. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business technology management

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

Article seems to be written by btmcorporation.com with most of the small number of references and "see also" pointing back to their company. It may be a legitimate topic but I think this article should be scrapped. Bhny (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided but probably delete based on obvious promotional tone and lack of suitable third-party sources. I began searching at Google News with "BTM Institute business technology management" and this is what I saw, probably more than half press releases (republished and original) and articles written by people affiliated with BTM Institute (such as this one and this one) thus promotional and not third-party (conflict of interest). I should also note that the first pages of news results show these problems and I finally something that wasn't a COI in 4th page here but it doesn't help much. In these results, you'll also find foreign results that pretty much look like republished PR. A search at Google Books also found results but are concerningly written by Faisal Hoque, a member of the institute and one of the writers of the COI articles. In that Google Books results, there are two results aren't affiliated with BTM Institute, and they are this (slim chance of usefulness though) and this (another slim chance because it's a brief mention). One final search all around failed to provide anything else. A search at thefreelibrary.com provided more press releases. I'm open to retracting my vote but based on my searches and the article's tone, I doubt there is much hope for this article at this time. For being an "institute" and a business science, there sure isn't much to support this article. No prejudice towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 4 October 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) 15:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional involved in the problem space described by this article, I see no reason to include it in Wikipedia at all. I heartily support deleting it. The core concept of "business technology management" is simply an attempt, by one commercial organization (hardly an institute), to rebrand the field of Enterprise Architecture under a moniker of their choosing in order to improve their ability to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. This is clearly a commercial activity (advertising). If others deem the "branding" to be noteworthy, I'd support a redirect so that the term "Business Technology Management" redirects to the article for "Enterprise Architecture". Nickmalik (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is so badly worded as to be word salad. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 15 October 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) 15:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bicrement

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; notability of a question in Stackoverflow.com is not clear; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide—it isn't desirable to have separate articles showing, trivially, how to add 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., to a variable in Java. This isn't the same situation as with increment, a primitive operation in both assembler language and many high-level languages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Previously tagged with PROD, removed by author. I can't say that this is suitably notable. It has a couple of mentions, but doesn't seem to have caught on very well. (You beat me at proposing this AfD) {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 01:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can see, this is a neologism that has circulated on forums and blogs, but is not in common use and not notable. Chris857 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this listed twice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erpert (talk • contribs)

I used ~~twinkle~~ page curation to nominate it for deletion, but somebody else did it at the same time, that's probably why. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 12:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I'm prepared to agree that this could be notable, if someone, somewhere has done serious work on a unary bicrement operation, its possible advantages, and that there is published sourcing to support this. However so far we have bicrement equated (incorrectly) with a commonplace binary addition of 2. That isn't original or notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary definition based no self-published sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:08, 9 October 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) 15:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bicrement

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; notability of a question in Stackoverflow.com is not clear; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide—it isn't desirable to have separate articles showing, trivially, how to add 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., to a variable in Java. This isn't the same situation as with increment, a primitive operation in both assembler language and many high-level languages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Previously tagged with PROD, removed by author. I can't say that this is suitably notable. It has a couple of mentions, but doesn't seem to have caught on very well. (You beat me at proposing this AfD) {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 01:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can see, this is a neologism that has circulated on forums and blogs, but is not in common use and not notable. Chris857 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this listed twice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erpert (talk • contribs)

I used ~~twinkle~~ page curation to nominate it for deletion, but somebody else did it at the same time, that's probably why. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 12:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I'm prepared to agree that this could be notable, if someone, somewhere has done serious work on a unary bicrement operation, its possible advantages, and that there is published sourcing to support this. However so far we have bicrement equated (incorrectly) with a commonplace binary addition of 2. That isn't original or notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary definition based no self-published sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Viacom (original). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viacom Enterprises

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

Page contains information that can be best summarized in a single paragraph on Viacom (original). No need for a separate article. Freshh (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, merge with the main Viacom article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Articles don't have to be deleted in order to be merged, people. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:41, 2 October 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) 15:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The main Viacom article should cover this.IrishStephen (talk) 17:40, 10 October 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 consensus is that there is insufficient reliable coverage to establish notability PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space Bridge

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Limited sources, one which just says "Transformers#US24". Lacks GNG. ///EuroCarGT 01:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little to no coverage in reliable secondary sources (blogs and primary sources only). Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, not notable enough for a seperate article Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~KEEP to Transformers technology, per WP:Before C4 which states that if the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. With some additional research I found dozens of articles mentioning the Space Bridge from the recent film. I added one here. Keep this article. Mathewignash (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Articles, even from reliable sources, that only discuss in-universe information about the Space Bridge (such as the part that it played in the recent film) are not enough to display notability. This should either be merged into Transformers technology or one of the articles proposed for creation below by The Bushranger . --Jpcase (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep per Mathewignash (talk · contribs) reasoning, I know we don't delete a lot of Transformers articles. JJ98 (Talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:18, 14 October 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) 15:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may be something that can be salvaged as a standalone article. Alternatively List of Transformers objects or List of Transformers artifacts might be an appropriate merge-creation for this, Matrix of Leadership, and other "bits and bobs" that lack individual out-of-universe notability but, as a group, are worth mentioning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Transformers technology or delete. Topic is not notable and does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:01, 27 October 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.

^ http://www.welovesoaps.net/2013/02/winners-4th-annual-indie-soap-awards.html

[1] ttp://www.welovesoaps.net/2013/02/winners-4th-annual-indie-soap-awards.html

[1]