Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 January	8 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Feedback

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

Contested prod. My reasoning remains unchanged: Every major corporation (and most non-major ones) have customer feedback forms on their website and at their stores. Google's feedback form is competely generic and is no more notable than the stack of "we value your comments" cards at the end of a Burger King counter. Mogism (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raname it as discussed in Talk:Google Feedback#Raname. You're even the same person the the person who proposed it for deletion. If you're going to nominate an article for deletion, don't waste other people's time proposing it's deletion first. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating it at AFD is what is supposed to happen if someone contests a proposed deletion. What would you suggest I do instead? Per my comments on the prod and above, there is no way this totally unreferenced piece of original research is appropriate content for Wikipedia. I don't see how you plan to write a broader Internet feedback article as you propose on the talkpage, even if you could persuade people that it's worthwhile, since the sources just don't exist - the topic is mundane and uncontroversial enough that nobody is ever going to publish papers on it, and in the absence of those papers it's not something Wikipedia can or should be covering. Mogism (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, I'm allowed to create an article when I can't find any sources if I assume other people are going to find them later. Blackbombchu (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what Mogism wrote, the purpose of proposed deletion is to avoid taking up people's time with a full deletion discussion like this one if one is sufficiently confident that the justification for deleting the article is sound and thinks the request might not be contested. If that doesn't go as planned, though (because someone removes the PROD tag), then a discussion is the natural next step if there hasn't also been an improvement in the situation that motivated the PROD placement.

You're correct that having no references (other than for a biography of a living person) is permitted. But sources that confirm notability have to exist. People who can't find them and doubt that they exist can then reasonably confer to discuss the article's deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be moved to Wikisource since so few sources already exist about feedback. Blackbombchu (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No go. Things on Wikisource have to be verifiable, and Wikipedia does not count as a verifiable source. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you missed my point. Wikisource is not Wikipedia, it's its sister project. Calling Wikisource part of Wikipedia is like calling Wikipedia part of Wikimedia commons. Maybe you thought the Word Wikipedia meant Wikimedia foundation which has all 12 sister projects one of which is Wikipedia. There's a link to the Wikimedia foundation at the bottom of all Wikipedia pages. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I really meant to suggest was that Wikisource be used for original research of Google Feedback and Bing feedback, not source the article Google Feedback. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has edited Wikimedia projects for over 5 years, I know that there are different wikis under the Wikimedia "umbrella". What I meant is that we cannot put the content of Google Feedback from here on Wikisource because it does not meet the standards for inclusion on Wikisource. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources, unlikely to ever be sources. Wikipedia is NOT everything and mere existence is not sufficient rationale for a stand alone article. With no sourced content, there is no value in renaming or re-purposing for anything else vaguely related that might of itself be notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To repeat my comment on the article's talk page from when I posted a notability tag there, "The article doesn't present any information about the feedback feature on Google websites that materially sets it apart from feedback links on many other websites so as to indicate why an article just for Google's feedback is warranted. References to sources dealing specifically and amply with Google's feedback mechanism are needed to validate this focus on the subject." (Blackbombchu has suggested having an article with the title "Internet feedback" instead, but that's a separate matter. I suspect that there hasn't been any general coverage of the feedback feature on various websites either.) I am finding pages where it's discussed: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. No reliable sources, but definitely signs of Google Feedback being a topic of discussion, as far as that goes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources. Nothing I can find treats the topic as the subject of an article/feature besides tutorials or unreliable sources. The topic itself is trivial, every big service has customer support, and unless there are sources for this one, I don't see why it should be an exception. (Disclaimer: saw the link to this from a proposal by the author to change inclusion/verifiability standards on VP.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no evidence that this is a notable topic. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just not notable, fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good lord. Not notable, not important, not sourced, not informative, not anything. No reason for this to be on Wikipedia, no reason for you to defend it. --Golbez (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This feature of the Google family of websites is not notable. There's no independent coverage in reliable sources. Lagrange 613 00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing special about Google's feedback form(s) that has given rise to any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I can find none in my searches. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Other matters discussed here are not relevant to the clear consensus that this does not (yet) meet Wikipedia's notability threshold. JohnCD (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StableCoin

If you came here because of the link posted on http://www.reddit.com/r/StableCoin, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

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

Another altcoin article. Reads like a WP:PROMO in addition to failing WP:GNG due to lack of sources. Citation Needed | Talk 20:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is great...an AfD with the start of it saying "Another alcoin article" from the creator of Dogecoin. I love to see how impartial you can be. Much hate, no value Huey2323 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is though, Dogecoin is clearly notable, due to the multiple nontrivial mentions in reliable sources (even if it is as a joke). Maybe we should compare? Stablecoin vs Dogecoin. Not that this is relevant, of course (WP:OTHERSTUFF). If you want to make an actual accusation of WP:COI based on that, then feel free, otherwise please stop saying the same thing over and over (although, even if the original poster did have COI, that wouldnt affect the people voting delete). Benboy00 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the article creator seems to be a WP:SPA with his/her only edits on one article that he created. Citation Needed | Talk 21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both of those references are press releases by Stablecoin. Stablecoin has re-started very recently, and this page is no doubt part of their "awareness campaign". They desperately need exposure (because the more people that are interested, the higher the price will be), and they seem pretty desperate to keep the price high. Also, there doesnt seem to be any news. The problem with things like this is that when theyre starting up, its pretty much a pyramid/ponzi scheme. It rewards early investors to the point that using it as a currency would be silly. The reason i think this should be deleted, though, is because its not notable (yet?) and is clearly promotional. Benboy00 (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source just added by a different SPA is also a press release from Stablecoin. Benboy00 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am declaring my neutrality in this discussion due to me being a regular of /g/ and /pol/, which happens to be main hotspots for discussion regarding this specific coin. I've also made a statement on a StableCoin general on 4chan (listed here at http://i.imgur.com/nkzQSGZ.png, because 4chan is blacklisted) explaining the issues that the article currently faces. Citation Needed | Talk 22:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a local source from a NBC affiliate in Virginia that talks about the coin, but this won't be enough. Either way, here's the source: http://www.wsls.com/story/24227113/innovative-bitcoin-alternative-stablecoin-posts-strong-gains-in-return Citation Needed | Talk 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thats from here, which is a press release. I'm not sure if we can rly count that as a reliable source, although maybe since the local news service reposted it, it might count (not sure of the exact rules on that). Benboy00 (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article reads like an advertisement. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am, along with others, actively changing the page due to the direction of the text in the article. When the page was first created it did sound like a promotional page. I have removed a lot of wording that would make it look that way. I am continuing to pull sources and other information from the developer to expand on the history and revisions of the topic. I will continue to update as the information comes in. Huey2323 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it stands, the entirety of the section "mixing service" is a copyvio from here. The problem with all these sites is that none of them count as a reliable source under WP:RELIABLE. This is, as stated before, "just another altcoin article". Bitcoin is notable because it has a whole heap of news coverage (and some serious adoption). Coinye is notable because it has a load of news coverage. This, however, does not have coverage in reliable independent sources. Of the current 8 sources: 3 are forums, 1 is a blogspot page, 3 are crypto-currency specialist websites, and the last is a press release website. Unless this changes, the page is unlikely to remain. Benboy00 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Therefore, from your reasoning, in order to be "relevant" the "news" has to cover it? That doesn't seem to be the way to determine relevancy due to the slant of popular new organizations. As I stated before, I will be updating the page along with references to make it less than promotional. You are wrong about who copied from where...The mixing information was copied from here [7] which is directly from the developer. Huey2323 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not his reasoning, is the standard Wikipedia policy: WP:GNG. Smite-Meister (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where it was copied from unless that source had a compatible CCP License (which it doesn't). Copying verbatim is not allowed. Please see WP:COPYPASTE. Also, as smite-meister says, WP:GNG is wikipedia policy, and it does make sense. There are also several other policies that this page probably fails, like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Benboy00 (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability. Refs provided are forums and marketing/press release sites and not RS coverage. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. As mentioned above, article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utter failure of GNG. Sources are blogs or promotional press releases. Joint work of several SPA authors. I only wish that there was a faster way to delete articles like this. Smite-Meister (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is, but since AfD was started, it's probably best to finish it instead of WP:SPEEDY. However, WP:SNOWBALL may apply. Benboy00 (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: StableCoin looks as if it has potential, but it still doesn't pass the GNG. Perhaps in the future. Tractor Tyres (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage in reliable sources. This reads like the articles for non-notable businesses that get deleted all the time. I suspect it was written with a similar promotional purpose in mind. Lagrange 613 01:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks like a WP:SNOWBALL. Any admins want to delete? Benboy00 (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review Article has been improved and its sources as well, if you think it should be rewritten just rewrite it not delete. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 09:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, sources have not actually been improved. Since I listed the sources and why they are not suitable (8th Jan) , nothing has been added. The people here don't seem to think the article should be rewritten (certainly I dont), we think it should be deleted. Benboy00 (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, you have created such a rapport with the 4chan community, they seem to think that your suggestion to delete this page is highly regarded. In your previous post you recommend that it be deleted but it seems that you have an agenda (http://i.imgur.com/nkzQSGZ.png). I have updated the page to not be promotional but only facts that haven't reported by multiple people (including the actual developer). If people still think that it needs changed, please let me know.

Comment First of all, please sign your posts (4~'s). Next, thats not me, thats the nominator. Your link doesnt really show that he has an agenda. It shows that he's following wikipedia policy. The thing you dont seem to understand is that we dont think this article could necessarily be improved, we think it shouldnt exist in any form (at least with this title). You cannot make a subject more notable by editing wikipedia. There is nothing you can do to this article to change our minds unless you can find reliable sources for it (that satisfy WP:GNG). This has nothing to do with 4chan (I dont think I've even visited 4chan in the past few years) and I would be surprised if many of the people responding here have even seen that thread. Just because people disagree with you, doesnt mean they have an agenda, and thats actually quite a serious accusation. Since that link clearly doesnt show an agenda, do you have any other evidence? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I uploaded that myself to declare myself neutral in this discussion because I do have a potential WP:COI with this coin due to me visiting /g/ regularly (apparently, you visit /g/ too, so we both have 'em). Secondly, my nomination doesn't count as a vote or anything like that, except to bring to attention possible concerns and problems with the article. Thirdly, the consensus seems to be plenty for deletion regardless of any "agenda" because so far the article has not been improved according to the eyes of the community. You won't change any minds by accusing me of having an agenda, but you can change minds if there is massive improvement. Citation Needed | Talk 22:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails notability. Did not find mention in any reliable sources in my Google searches of books, newspapers, academic journals/sources, or in the first 50 search results returned by Google's web search. I tried verifying reliability of cited sources within the article, and all failed to meet WP:RS; they were not close calls, and were so far from being reliable that I removed the citations and cited claims. Without any reliable sources to work from, the article cannot be improved. Please post any reliable sources on the topic if you find them. --Agyle (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've struggled hard to find notability and failed... Huey2323 is clearly affiliated with stablecoin and trying to spam wikipedia. VinceSamios (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no close connections to StableCoin nor have I even spoken with the developer. I am not trying to spam wikipedia, just trying to ensure that the information about cryptocurrency is accurate. Huey2323 (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Added a credible resource for news with a comment about the security and encryption of the coin Huey2323 (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only mention of stablecoin in that article is "Anoncoin claims to be more anonymous (obviously) and Stablecoin to have "military-grade" encryption." Clearly a passing reference. Clearly impossible to use to establish notability. Benboy00 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Still not notable. Lagrange 613 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a reference, nonetheless, from a reliable source Huey2323 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the general notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention". Lagrange 613 16:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and understand. Please see the above note, it does not claim notability, just a reference. Huey2323 (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it isnt relevant to his AfD discussion. Please only post relevant information and discussion. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you, for obscuring the reason for this AfD discussion. I mentioned that I would be updating and making the page informative and less like a promotion. With the help of Agyle it seems to be there. Now, in reference to the Note above, I believe that it is very relevant to the discussion as it shows improvements to the article in this AfD. Huey2323 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another pretty serious allegation. The reason most people are saying delete is an utter failure of notability. This subject is, to most of the people here, not notable, and this is likely going to be the opinion of the closing admin. This argument is what you need to rebut. Notability alone is grounds to delete this article. Posting things not related to this is counter productive. Benboy00 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain "Posting things not related to this is counter productive" Huey2323 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posting things not related to the notability of the subject is counter productive as it leads people to believe that you accept that the article isn't notable, and are trying to paper over that. If you dont address the notability problem, your argument is irrelevant. It also means that people with this page on their watchlist have to check back for irrelevant material, which is annoying. Benboy00 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, a Note about upgrading the article to conform more towards guidelines "annoys" you? WP:GNG was not the only thing that the original poster had a concern with. It was also WP:PROMO. I am beginning to question your "neutrality" to this AfD. Huey2323 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a crucial standard by which topics are judged to belong in the encyclopedia or not. It is important for upholding all three core content policies. The nominator also noted that the content seems promotional, which puts the article in conflict with one of those policies, namely that Wikipedia be written from a neutral point of view. While this issue speaks to the article's quality, addressing it does not make the topic notable, which again is necessary for inclusion. You're new here, and it's fine that you're not yet familiar with these policies and guidelines. But until you are, please don't question others' motives. Assuming good faith and refraining from personal attacks are also cornerstones of Wikipedia. Lagrange 613 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I was just making a note that I was continuing to upgrade the article to make it less WP:PROMO. I get thwarted at every turn to upgrade and change the article by Benboy00 and it seems odd that his campaign is all criticism. I have stated that I have no contact or close ties with the developer of the software and I am editing from a neutral point of view. With that being said, I do not think anything in the article can be refuted and deemed WP:PROMO at this point. Huey2323 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any edits recently to the page, so I'm not sure what you mean by "thwarted". It's great that you want to help wikipedia, but the problem is that there isn't much point in trying to improve the article if its going to be deleted anyway. Your efforts would be better spent looking for reliable sources to help stop the deletion of this page. Benboy00 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of trying to sit back and criticize, you may want to attempt to help people try and get accustomed to the community. Not only did Agyle make his suggestions, but also edited the page in a way to clear up any issues he had with it. The only contribution you have made is to the AfD, which is not very welcoming. Huey2323 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it has now been 7 days, it seems likely that this AfD will be closed (presumably as delete, although i probably count as biased (because of my delete vote)). If anyone has any more keep arguments, or can find any more sources, now is probably the time to show that. Benboy00 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to note that the original AfD creator, Citation Needed, is the creator of a similar page Dogecoin. I am not sure if this is a WP:COI since there where no edits from him to the main article. Although, this section would indicate that he has direct ties to marketing another altcoin. Huey2323 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok, again, this is a serious accusation. If you truly believe that he has WP:COI, and can give some sort of evidence for this, then feel free to do so. However, creating an article on a similar topic is NOT evidence for a COI. If you look at the way he started that article, you would see that it was supported with sources from the very beginning. This article was not. As a WP:SPA, you are accusing an established non-SPA editor of COI. I understand that you are new, but surely you can see why this is not the smartest thing to do, especially when there is no actual evidence. User:Citation Needed has conducted himself very well in this AfD, and you have made several accusations against others. Dogecoin is notable. StableCoin is seemingly not. Dogecoin has several reliable sources. Stablecoin does not. I already made this clear here. Please stop with these baseless accusations, or you may be sanctioned. Benboy00 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice: I've started a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Huey's behavior and bad faith accusations. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Huey2323_and_bad_faith_accusations. Citation Needed | Talk 23:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Miniapolis 00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait until this gets coverage in books or academic journals, or until the news sources are treating it as an established subject, as something whose existence is assumed. Look at Bitcoin: news sources don't necessarily assume that people know what it is, but their stories about it are generally "Here's what happened regarding Bitcoin, a computerised currency" rather than "Someone just invented a computerised currency, Bitcoin". At the moment, everything out there is either the really basic news stuff — we need sources that are independent of their subject, including chronologically, so that we won't be the newspaper — or things like forums and YouTube videos. Nothing solid on which a proper encyclopedia article can be written. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A few other cryptocurrencies meet notability standards, but StableCoin has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Only mentioned in passing at most. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last Chance to Reason

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

The subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The article's only sources are a press release from the band's record label, a Wordpress blog, and two articles from a website that does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn - Notability established by Gongshow's sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - two Allmusic reviews [8][9], two more at Exclaim! [10][11], and a Noisecreep article on the band's singer joining another band [12]. I'm not seeing much else in reliable sources, but these write-ups in my view satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gong show 20:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Gongshow's sources plus these: [13], [14], [15], [16] - not all really significant but the coverage as whole is sufficient to satisfy notability guidelines, and it's usually the case that metal bands with this sort of coverage online have further coverage in print sources that don't show up on Google searches. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Stacy (US soldier)

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable and is not much of an article in the first place. Half of what little is there isn't even about him. United States Man (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notoriety isn't inherited. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL either....William 12:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. However ... this could be re-created if he was tied, by a reliable source, to the tortures. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lone Pravda article doesn't establish notability. I can't find any other reliable sources for James Stacy or James Stacy Adams, which was apparently his full name. Lagrange 613 01:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -- Adams was a well-respected senior NCO, whose motto was "with proper NCO leadership, a private can do no wrong" -- and then his Battalion was linked to the infamous Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. If we are all agreed that there are currently insufficient references to justify a stand alone article about Adams and his role in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse I suggest the article should be changed to a redirect to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. I suggest that redirect has to preserves the contribution history. The GFDL and CC licenses we release our intellectual property under require preserving the contribution history of articles, when they are merged into another article. Geo Swan (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The source states that "with proper NCO leadership, a private can do no wrong" was "One of his favorite sayings", not his motto and ends by stating that "At this time, there has not been a connection made between the cause of Adams' death and events surrounding Abu Ghraib prison", though the author had some personal concerns that there might be. As such, you seem to be drawing a rather long bow here, though I agree that a connection is probable. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I included a paragraph about James Stacy Adams in the article about the 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion (United States) -- Adams's unit. Is there anyone here who doesn't agree some coverage of Adams belongs in that article? Geo Swan (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when are opinion articles in Pravda a reliable source? Also, you've inserted material which isn't supported by any source and duplicated the only RS. I've just edited this down. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability. Googling "James Stacy" "Abu Ghraib" does not produce any additional useful references so it appears that the various inquiries did not find that Stacy had a significant role or there were long-term consequences arising from his tragic death. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sami A. Khan

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Khan is a single book author. The article was created by editor Sunnysin, a single-purpose account. The article was proded by WikiDan61 shortly after its creation for lack of references. After external links were provided, WikiDan61 removed the prod. Delete or Merge and Redirect to book Red Jihad. --Bejnar (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Red Jihad. The author clearly fails WP:AUTHOR, but maybe not forever. Also please address the plagiarism of the biographical details in this interview. Lagrange 613 01:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please close this, so that we can Merge and redirect to Red Jihad. --Bejnar (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Centre International

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

Essentially promotional article with local references DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per DGG. Articlespam. ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The brief mention in the Guardian piece cited in the article is the only coverage I can find for Freedom Centre International or South London Temple, its former name. It's not enough for notability. The History section is largely plagiarized from the church's website. Lagrange 613 01:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals

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

One particular specific way o] labelling chemical hazards--of no general applicability and too specific for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scorcher (rapper)

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have added half-dozen cites to article evidencing notability from sources such as The Guardian, The Sun, Pitchfork, and MTV UK, and there are more out there. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - please close I was too quick to nominate; thanks, Hobbes. Boleyn (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The policy based arguments fall mostly on the side of deletion Guerillero | My Talk 05:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie McFarland

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

WP:BLP1E: McFarland is "notable" solely as the designer of the obverse of the 2014 Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative coin, which received some amount of press among coin enthusiasts, but no wider coverage. If there was an article about the coin, I would redirect to that, but there isn't. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not biographically notable under the general guidelines or as a "creative professional". She had good PR, but that is all it is. --Bejnar (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any coverage beyond items to the effect of "the coin was designed by Cassie McFarland, of San Luis Obipso, California, who won the ..."; no features, nothing biographical. Go Phightins! 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Original author here - Numismatic researchers do seek out biographical information of the sort presented here. As for "no wider coverage", it's true she's beginning her career, but surely a work of public art, mass produced by the United States Government, is relatively wide coverage for an artist? Hypnopompus (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the {{WikiProject Numismatics}} banner to Talk:Cassie McFarland, which should pop the article up onto the article alerts section of that project. Perhaps someone in that community can give a hand to this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It breaks my heart, because the article is in such better shape than the vast majority that get sent to AfD. But she's not notable independent of this one creation, which may not be notable itself. Usefulness to numismatic researchers or anyone else isn't enough. If she goes on to do lots of other great things then this article can be re-created, but until then, delete. Lagrange 613 01:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do bring up a good point. Incubation is possible. Go Phightins! 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation if she does further work attracting coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This talk of deleting is non-sense. There are literally tens of thousands of wikipedia pages with less importance. As a numismatic scholar and expert in the field, this individual artist, though young, is responsible for the design on three U.S. coins- the first which feature a lenticular shape in the country's history. Furthermore, the author appears to have done more than an adequate job beginning her entry and citing sources. The coin will come out in a few months and likely win awards- which I'm sure will be fodder for additional input on this page. Please be respectful of someone who is trying to add a definitive entry for an individual that will soon receive heavy attention from people who are interested in the field of numismatics and medallic art." — comment added by Numismatics (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Zollo

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

BLP for a local teacher/administrator with no significant references, no assertion of notability, and written by a Conflict-of-Interest editor. My search found no independent reliable sources -- let alone significant coverage. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Although a BLP, this is essentially written as a WP:MEMORIAL. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator said it all. Lagrange 613 01:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline A7 speedy deletion. As the nominator says, there is no assertion of notability in the article, despite a lot of fluff. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 05:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline list of Hasidic leaders

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

Orphan page that isn't even a list of what it claims to be about. No significant edits since well over a year ago . Page should be "userfied" until ready for promotion back to article-space. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or: ~~rename and~~ userfy but rename if recreated): I have always wondered what the purpose of this list is. There have been very many (several thousand) Hasidic leaders since the times of Hasidism's founder, the Baal Shem Tov, most of whom are easily notable per WP:GNG (only some of which have articles; see Category:Hasidic rebbes), but I can see no logic in organizing them with a timeline. Some of the content of this page could be used, renamed, to form a Timeline of Hasidism, but even so, the article is so incomplete that user-fication is required. (The usual way of organizing Hasidic leaders is by dynasty; Yitzhak Alfasi's books on Hasidic leaders and dynasties, the standard reference works in this field, and similar works by other authors all use the dynastic organizational scheme.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Amended: who cares what name it has in userspace? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and הסרפד. This looks like a term paper project. It is also unclear whether the maps are public domain or not. Hasidic Judaism already covers the same subject. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per others. United States Man (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy. The article is essentially content-free, a skeleton around which an article may have grown if the primary author (seemingly an occasional editor) had gotten around to it. The maps seem fine to me, unless I'm missing something. Lagrange 613 01:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Tahir Mahmood Chahal Jatt

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

Google search only returns results form Facebook, nothing else. [17] Vanjagenije (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible article, but he was a member of a national legislature and is therefore notable under WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with Necrothesp. The article is awful, but he is still fairly notable. United States Man (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do we have a reliable source for his service in Parliament? Without that it's hard to establish notability. This is also a BLP issue. Lagrange 613 01:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though this article is badly written it still falls under WP:POLITICIAN and need a rewrite not be deleted.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lagrange613 has a valid point. Is this person really a member of parliament? The subject is not listed on the National Assembly website. The only supplied semi-reliable reference lists another person winning the NA-135 constituency. Only the infobox suggests that the subject is anything more than a local politician. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, http://jang.com.pk/election2002/thenews_sp/03-10-2002/sp_edition10.htm doesn't list him as a winner in 1990 election from NA-129 constituency. No evidence that he has been MP. --Soman (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AppsFreedom, Inc.

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any sources to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Wolkstein

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

No indication of significance, includes non reliable references. Itsalleasy (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the article has changed, there's clearly significance shown here (award-winning director of notable short films) and the second part about the sourcing falls back to AfD not being cleanup. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, User:Taylor Trescott's said it all, AFD isn't used as a clean up and She's appeared in notable films. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that all of these lists should be deleted. Sandstein 10:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Fighter G Gundam mobile suits

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of Mobile Fighter G Gundam. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these lists that have the same issues:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of these articles satisfy WP:LISTN, and merging them into the main articles would overwhelm those articles with overly-detailed plot elements. Like TTN says, this is much better suited to Wikia. If someone wants to copy them over, that would probably be helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mobile Fighter G Gundam where notability of neither the list nor the list elements is required per WP:NNC. Per WP:TOOLONG, an article being to large (in this case making an article too large) is an invalid reason to remove material. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:LISTN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per NinjaRobotPirate. The lists fail the notability guidelines and the material itself is too far removed from the closest notable subject to be of any merging value. Them From Space 20:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at 5th tier beauty pageants

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

Unsure of notability here. The pageants themselves seem to have not much in the way of sourcing to show notability, let alone such a specific hook on that area. Wizardman 16:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. This is akin to having an article on a city counsil district election. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I try to avoid the beauty pageant crap as much as possible after the whole Araksi Çetinyan nightmare, but I see no reason for this article to exist - as Bearian has said, it IS a non-notable stage in the progress. No reason for a standalone article. Mabalu (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lexx#Minor_characters. Anything worth merging (but note the absence of any sources) can be retrieved from the article history. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Predecessor

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

This does not establish notability independent of Lexx 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) 15:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Lexx#Minor characters. Leave out the song lyrics. Not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Non notable.Martin451 23:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lexx#Minor characters. Not notable. Could also be merged, but there's so little information beyond the song lyrics that it doesn't really seem worthwhile. The song was actually pretty funny, but it's best detailed on Wikia and other fansites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was minimal input here, but the delete consensus seems clear enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilija Dodić

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

Subject does not seem to meet notability standards of WP:BIO Agyle (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If his film Five Minutes to Twelve is notable (i.e. widely reviewed), that would probably make him notable per WP:DIRECTOR. However, it has been AfDed and I have serious doubts as to whether it is notable either (but my Serbian is not strong). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IMDb link leads to someone else, but 5 to 12 is on IMDb with Ilija Dodić as director. I'm not sure if anyone at all can edit the database, though. Why not wait for the Serbian WP AfD outcome? Sparafucil (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Sparafucil (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe he will be notable one day, but today he's 18, and winning a high-school contest with a short film (now deleted) just does not cut it. No such user (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation in the future. This seems to be a bit too soon for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave DeCeglie

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

The claims to notability for this American musician are based upon membership of the band Juniper Sky, his association with Robt Ptak and his contributions to some tribute albums. I cannot find any evidence that the subject of this article meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO or the general notability guide, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong. — sparklism ^hey! 14:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 14:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I gave an honest effort in looking for independent sources for this artist and could find none. Does not meet notability criteria for WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see the coverage that shows notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Roy Dotrice#Personal life. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Dotrice

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

It may seem I have a vendetta against the Dotrices, but I don't! People don't generally inherit notability from their far more well-known family members (well, not on Wikipedia at the moment). Kay Dotrice died only a few years ago and I would expect a significant obituary somewhere to recognise her enduring importance. Unfortunately I can only find a very brief death notice. Should we put an end to this article, or is there something I'm missing? Sionk (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roy Dotrice#Personal life. She did appear in 25 episodes of Crossroads (soap opera), but I can't find any other major film or TV roles, or any details about major stage roles. It's possible there is some press coverage from 70s or 80s but so far there's no evidence she meets WP:ACTOR or WP:BIO. In any case, there's very little info in the article, and I'm not sure she was really best known for her Shakespearean work (she was also in Cheech & Chong's The Corsican Brothers in a small role alongside her husband). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tutorial. Most appropriate redirect seems to be Tutorial, but if necessary the target can be changed after discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explainer video

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

Poorly-sourced article about a product, that seems to exists as a WP:COATRACK for WP:LINKSPAM and WP:REFSPAM. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep This gets no good book hits, but it does seem to get a decent set of web hits. That said, the text we have now is terribly promotional and I wouldn't object to a WP:TNT deletion. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge into Infomercial. "Explainer video" is an unhandy neologism. --Bejnar (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to E-learning or Tutorial. ///EuroCarGT 21:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Basketball Developmental League

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only Wiki mirrors show up in Google search results. It's also been tagged since June 2007 for improved references of which none have been added. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, might be notable, but I am not able to find any independent reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and CSD G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deezy

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NACTOR. majority of the sources are track listing or SPS. CSD was challenged by the creator of the previously speedied version. Ish dar ian 12:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sigh... It's been speedied five times and protected against recreation twice. Let's bury it for good. Self-promotion by non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible Judgements For them to even not give enough time to edit and gather information is not fair nor is it jusifiable. I'm sure you want to put some more deletions under your belt, but do it to another page. There was still NO LOGICAL explanation on to why the page was marked for deletion in the first place because there are COUNTLESS amounts of pages that lack resources and verifiable information. Please stop doing the absolute most & enjoy your day gentlemen. User talk:Urbaninformative Question? —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All info that could make him somewhat notable is unsourced and I doubt some of it is true at all (signed to Young Money? featured on We Are Young Money? Google doesn't seem to think so.) Even if that was true still fails WP:NMUSIC. Urbaninformative's comment above is WP:OTHER and I'd also suggest him to keep civil. 2Flows (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt No evidence of WP:MUSIC notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough evidence of WP:MUSIC notability. Also it has been updated with more/better sources. hiphopfeign ^Talk 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again Previous discussion covers it. No media coverage (or any other reliable sources) cited to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Most of the references that are cited are either IMDB-like artist pages that duplicate the same information, or links to purchase art; these are not the same as media coverage, nor indicative of widespread respect in the field. Appears to be simply self-promotional content, created by a user whose username indicates they are a member of the same band as this artist. Josh3580_talk/hist 04:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Exo members#Lay. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lay (singer)

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

Not notable on his own. 70% of article content is about his band, no notable solo projects (movie or solo album). What is know about him peronally can be already found at List of Exo members. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 11:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Exo members#Lay. There is no need for a separate article. --Bejnar (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just noticed that the article was a redirect before and a new user restored it from the redirect. I think based on this it could be speedy delete (redirect) and the result posted on the talk page of List of Exo members, in case some fans try restoring the articles again, we would have reference. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 14:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Exo members which is where all the other members are redirected as well. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Letter (message). Guerillero | My Talk 05:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Informal letter

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

This looks like some kind of how-to guide. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless totally rewritten and referenced. The topic of letter format/style could be the subject of a valid encyclopedic article (as long as it steered clear of overtly how-to content), letter writing is the subject of a lot of academic attention these days[18][19][20][21], and Letter (message) could badly do with expansion. But this article is very far from an encyclopedic article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment We have a business letter article which I would assume represents American practice and which very much as a how-to character. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this edit removed the AfD message, after which this edit redirected the page to Letter (message). Redirect to that article seems appropriate to me. Cnilep (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not resemble most other Wikipedia articles in its formatting. Should be deleted unless written as an encyclopedic entry with reputable sources cited.Carpalclip3 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Letter (message). PaintedCarpet (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article is a mess; that's not a reason to delete, but I suspect it's getting in the way of people forming a clear consensus on notabiltiy, which is the key issue here. So, let's keep the article for now and hopefully somebody will fix the structural issues. After that, if notability hasn't been established, it can come back here for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Don't Kneel

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

The IP user 101.172.213.65 added the template to the article but apparently could not create the nomination page. They left the following comment on the talk page of the article: This tag team has no substantive coverage outside of Japan, and even within Japan it appears promotional only. Plenty of unsubstantiated claims without sources in the article. To this end this fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Neither have been established. (Note that I am purely creating the nomination, I have no opinion on the article). Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International tag team currently contracted to Pro Wrestling NOAH, a major Japanese wrestling company. KingMorpheus (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited from Pro Wrestling NOAH. No sourced activity outside Japan if there is any activity, therefore not an international tag team. Activity in Japan appears limited to one company, therefore fails WP:GNG in my opinion. BerleT (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've worked in ROH and OVW. Your opinion is wrong. KingMorpheus (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a source proving they've wrestled in at least 6 promotions in Australia, Japan and USA. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 05:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One match in ROH does not make them notable. Only one promotion in Australia is somewhat suspicious, and it seems that the vast majority of their matches have been with NOAH. I maintain my position that they are not an international tag team. The only concession I'll give them is adding the word "yet". BerleT (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NOAH Champions and Tokyo Sports' tag team of the year. The article, though, is horrible and needs some serious work.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Champions in one promotion and winning one award that is not well known outside of the area does not make a case and not enough evidence to prove any international standing per BerleT. Needs to do a lot more to pass WP:GNG. Agree with Ribbon about the quality of the article as well. Little coverage in English, which also goes to notability. 58.165.7.185 (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable tag team with some even less notable one off hanger-onners. Agree with BerleT that any notability is inherited from NOAH and doesn't stand up on it's own. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CATZILLA

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

Seems to be promotional in nature. Lacks reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few non-english sources, but they seem to be minor blogs and the like. - Mr X 12:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ali

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

I came across this article while trying to find coverage for a film he created, Fatima. At first I looked at the article briefly and figured that due to the claims, that he would be notable and that I wouldn't really have to worry about finding sources. You can see the original state of the article here. Now what I quickly discovered while looking for sources is that this guy has a history of outright lying about his accomplishments per this newspaper. Supposedly he's not only worked as a model, singer, and director, but he's also on the boards for several big production companies and he's one of several people who have to OK films before they can even hit the streets or get made. That's just one of the things that he's asserted or that the article has asserted about him. I'd have just speedied this as a hoax, but the guy is real even if most of his claims apparently aren't and I'd like for a few people to verify this by looking for sources. There are only about three sources, which aren't enough to show notability. While searching for things, remember that the claims for Ali and his films should be taken with a grain of salt. Supposedly his film won several awards, was put through LionsGate, BBC was backing it, etc, but apparently all of those claims are false. The same person who reported the first claims was the same person who wrote the article saying that the guy was making everything up. I have a feeling that Ali himself has been editing the article, given the way some of the article was edited. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The claims for notability made prior to Tokyogirl79's cleanup are not verifiable (to put it mildly). Stripped of those claims, there isn't really a case for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five Minutes to Twelve

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

Lacks even the IMDb votes, fails to meet WP:NFILM and GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find enough info to justify notability, though I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the language of the film. Award that the film won seems to be at a film festival of unclear importance (award mentioned in rkt.rs article/interview). A google translation of the Serbian Wikipedia article (also nominated for deletion) consists of "5 to 12 ( Eng. Five Minutes to Twelve) is a Serbian short film from the 2013th The director of the film is Elijah Dodić and starring Natalija Radic , Andrew Colic , Milena Novakovic and Vanja Todorovic . Film speaks on the topic of juvenile unwanted pregnancy in Serbia. [1] The film won first place at the Short Film Festival Tik-Tak Fest 2013th [2]" --Agyle (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Agyle: You're right. Award was fairly trivial, a non-important competition organized for elementary schoolers. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, based on the Serbian wikipedia article deletion discussion, the festival had 14 entries, on the topic of unwanted pregnancies, from 8th-12th grade students. Elementary school, in the US, typically means school up to the 5th or 6th grade, around age 10-12. --Agyle (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Info on IMDb proves its importance. --Dodić Ilija 21:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb includes user-submitted content, and uses different inclusion criteria than Wikipedia, including being “of general public interest.” That is met by any work that is publicly displayed, including any video uploaded for public viewing on the internet (e.g. YouTube). So inclusion on IMDb does not indicate notability, as Wikipedia defines it. From Dodić Ilija's name, I would guess this is the creator of the work, and is not an unbiased judge of this issue. Please don't take this personally, I sincerely hope you become a well known filmmaker, but right now I do not think this film nor its creator meet Wikipedia's notability standard. --Agyle (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Agyle: The organizers of the movie festival have created this article, if you think that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standard I respect your opinion. Just to clarify, I didn't mean nothing bad when I wrote that IMDb proves its importance. --Dodić Ilija 22:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this short film exists and has screened and has won a minor award, it fails having enough coverage to meet WP:NF. If non-English sources are brought forth, ping me so my !vote might be reconsidered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ″The organizers of the movie festival have created this article″ – here's one more reason to delete, a conflict of interest. Alex^{discussion ★} 20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Klee Irwin

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

I began removing poorly-sourced contentious material about this BLP, such as material cited to a warning letter from the FDA, a document from the SEC and a press release from the DA. After removing BLP violations, there were no sources left, and all I found in a Google News search was ~~this blurb~~(my bad, this was an ad). Subject does not appear to have substantial coverage in independent sources. Prior AfDs appear to only barely have skid by on Keep and only because editors presumed it was well-sourced, when it actually only had primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 08:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:CorporateM has in the course of all his removals completely whitewashed an article on a man whose name appears on pretty much every blog tracking medical scams and quackery, these being his only claims to noteriety. I am not up on exactly which of these has gained our respect, if any, but it is a leadpipe cinch that the current state of the article cannot be retained, not because it is unsourced, but because it is a knowing misrepresentation. I would personally prefer to keep an article, but if we cannot come to an agreement as to which documentation of his misdeeds is acceptable, deletion would have to be preferred. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" and WP:BLPREMOVE says to remove such content, even if it means violating the three-revert rule. WP:BLPSPS says to avoid self-published sources like blogs. Additionally our notability criteria requires that there be multiple, reliable secondary sources that cover the topic in depth for the article to remain. I cannot assess whether the article is an accurate representation of the BLP's reputation or conduct - I can only evaluate the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CorporateM (Talk) 16:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you cannot, but I can and do make such an assessment, regardless of what I may write in Wikipedia. The lecture on policy notwithstanding, the current version is patently misleading to anyone who does a Google search on this guy. I did not register an opinion as to whether the article should be deleted because I am unsure whether his notoriety can be sourced to our standards; however, I would strenuously object to retaining it as it currently stands. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're in agreement then ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 17:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've voted the other way before on the article because the argument for deletion was weak. This is a better argument. I've research press on the guy and have found almost nothing; there is nothing that shows the person as notable. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reviewed the contents of the AfDs plural. Reviewed the article itself. The only citation in the version I reviewed was being used to support a sentence with 2 claim elements - 1: that SU is unaccredited (which is in the citation) and 2: that the subject of this BLP helped found SU (but I cant find where the source mentions the subject of this BLP at all). I deleted the citation because it incompletely supported the text, particularly the element that might have been relevant to the BLP. As such, the citation was misleading. Which leaves the rest of the article as a rickety tickety donkey bridge, except there is no donkey and no bridge. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and other delete votes. Clearly not notable. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Rauschenberg

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

Non-notable athlete; coverage is all superficial local stuff. Orange Mike | Talk 07:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article makes a rather specific claim of notability per WP:N in terms of his efforts to run a series of 52 marathons over a span of a year, and backs uo that claim of notability with a few dozen reliable and verifiable sources that include major newspapers and magazines, who were covering Rauschenberg and his efforts to achieve his goal. So many articles discussed at AfD make tenuous claims of notability and are kept with the argument that there may well be more sources available. This article far exceeds the standards of retention in Wikipedia in general and goes well beyond nearly all articles kept at AfD. Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC, is notable, and the coverage is not all "superficial" or local. Source examples include:

Top This Resolution: A Marathon a Week. The Washington Post.
Book Review & Interview: 'See Dane Run' by Dane Rauschenberg. The Oregonian.
See Dane run
Taking running to the extreme
CORY MULL: Dane Rauschenberg takes ultradistance running to new level
Students 'See Dane Run' (subscription required)
Book Review: See Dane Run By Dane Rauschenberg (subscription required)
Dane Rauschenberg to Serve as This Year's RBC Wealth Management Charity Chaser
DJ Interviews Dane Rauschenberg

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solestruck

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a company. It exists. It seems to be doing OK. Is it notable? I don't see that it is yet. Mabalu (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to V._C._Andrews#The_Landry_series. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl in the Mist

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to V._C._Andrews#The_Landry_series. I can't find enough to really show that this individual book merits an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poets' Graves

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. That the British Library archives it didn't prove notability to me, and no other suggestion of it. It survived an AfD in 2006, but I think this may have been due to different standards then, rather than verified notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEBSITE. Koala15 (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find independent reliable coverage (there's some mentions online[22][23] but that doesn't meet standards for establishing notability). Not on the same level as Find a Grave or even Walter Skold's Dead Poets Society of America (which has some press but no WP article yet). Previous AfD kept it on the basis the website is useful, which isn't a valid reason these days. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no notability at all, and the 'Read our Wikipedia entry' on its front page adds insult to injury. It's a nice personal project, not the subject of an encyclopedia article. Shows how WP has changed in last 7 years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 05:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B.Care Medical Center

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet GNG. Also did a quick search of "บี.แคร์ เมดิคอลเซ็นเตอร์" for Thai-language sources, didn't immediately seem to turn up much significant. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands looks like an advert, and hospitals are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 siege of the Pakistani embassy in Dhaka

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

Event not notable enough. Small event of 50-60 protesters, no deaths, nobody got near the actual Embassy premises, no aftermath of the event (this is from the news sources). Ratibgreat (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 13:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 13:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on Pakistan-Bangladesh relations. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The incident was widely covered in the media and was particularly notable in the context of worsening Bangladesh-Pakistan relations, which have become quite controversial since the death of Abdul Quader Molla. The event also recieved coverage among the governments and diplomats of both countries, so I would say this is notable. Mar4d (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as the incident was widely covered. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to OpenSolaris. Given the lack of sources, not much material seems to be available for a merge, but if necessary, the content can be retrieved from the article history (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSolaris JeOS

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

(Defunct) software which does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found a manual/book about the subject ([www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?paratrk=&isbn=9786135271140 ISBN: 6-13-527114-8]) but otherwise nothing to help support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is from Betascript Publishing, so probably just documentation. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into OpenSolaris or Just enough operating system, unless that article should be deleted too. Seems like there's at least some discussions on this outside wikipedia. LionMans Account (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the discussion outside Wikipedia? The only source in Just enough operating system, a VMWare blog [24] does not mention OpenSolaris JeOS, only other JeOSes (which weren't even called JeOSes by their makers at the time or now.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It does not seem highly notable by itself and the content is short enough I believe merging is appropriate. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 05:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Saif-ud-din

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

Subject appears to be a remarkable but unfortunately not notable school principal. The article relies 100% on wiki-based sources which cannot be considered reliable even for a deceased person. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that I should have not published the article while I am still completing it and in the process linking to valid references. The subject was also not a school principal as you have commented but a professor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wamiq.bashir (talk • contribs) 08:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Highest administrative officer of a significant college. There's enough here to get started with. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe. There does not seem to be enough here or elsewhere. Three of the cited references don't refer to Professor Saif-ud-din. The book Tareekh-e-Aqwam-e-Kashmir (1934) briefly mentions his uncle. The most substantive reference is the last one about the reinstatement of the short-lived annual football tournament in his name. The event which was started in early 80’s in memory of Professor Saif-ud-din who was associated with the institute as student, professor and then administrator. There is just not any substantive coverage, nor is it clear exactly where his notability lies, except locally at the college. I have not seen a copy of the book Kashmir Stray Thoughts (2013) which is a collection of essays about the recent political history of Jammu and Kashmir, but substantive coverage of Professor Saif-ud-din is unlikely, as he was not a political figure. Research is complicated by the fact that Saif-ud-din is not an uncommon name. I found more than I wanted to known about Sultan Saif-ud-din of the Ilyas Shahi dynasty of Bengal. The college history of Sri Pratap College mentions him in one sentence: And Administrator Like Prof. M. U. Moore, Prof. Vinamali Chakarvati, Prof. Jia Lal Kaul And Prof. Saif-Ud- Din Have Served The College And Contributed To The Level That The Hundreds Of The College Alumni Rose To Eminence In Different Fields Of Human Activity In The State, By Occupying Important Positions. There is no significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The policy based arguments are in favor of deletion Guerillero | My Talk 05:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redington (India) Limited

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

"Awards" are only from organizations that it does business with. Fails WP:NCORP ES &L 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A firm going about its routine business; given references are primary; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable & listed company. Company is leading IT distribution company in India. Cheers AKS 13:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make them notable ES &L 14:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Portland Exposition Building. Any content worth merging can be obtained fromp the article history. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Maine Convention Center

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

From what I can tell, possibly notable conventions may have occurred at this center but the center itself does not seem to have been the subject of any reliable sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and historic. Plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Need to be merged with Portland Exposition Building. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the distinction between the Portland Maine Convention Center and the Portland Exposition Building? There seems to be a lot of overlap. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the Portland Exposition building and should be merged there. We don't need two articles on the same subject under two different names (and the building doesn't go by this name). Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Portland Exposition Building, known as the Expo. The topics are the same, and the title "Portland Maine Convention Center" is just a new PR-based name that is not as used as the others. --Bejnar (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Texas Oilfield Expo

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

I'm having a tough time assessing the notability of this event, but I'm leaning for it not meeting guidelines, but could use some more input from fellow Wikipedians on this. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search for independent, reliable sources came up dry. I am sure that it is a somewhat important regional trade show for the oil drilling industry, but that doesn't mean it is notable by Wikipedia's standards. If someone else finds sources indicating that it meets WP:GNG, then I will be happy to change my recommendation to keep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much other than saying when and where the show was being held. Not notable based on what I found in Google.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maripily Rivera

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

Non-notable model from Puerto Rico, best known for being married to baseball star Roberto Alomar. Blackjays1 (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Meets WP:BASIC quite easily since she has been covered by a plethora of independent & secondary reliable sources. Most of them in Spanish:

...and so on.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/ Redirect to hudband's article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is also an actress and a TV show co-host. I have added additional information to reflect this. BTW, the article was marked with the stub template, which --at a minimum-- can help relay to other editors that the subject of the article presummed notable but needs more information. The article needed additional information and some additional info has been provided that clarifies notability and reflects the subjects' relevance. Mercy11 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite your recent edits, this article still appears to be a product of inherited notability. I'll admit, she may have a minor level of notability as a TV personality, but her "rise to acting fame" (as noted in the article) consists of a minor role in one film and an appearance in a theatre production. Her modeling career isn't very notable either; she hasn't appeared in any major fashion magazines. When I searched for "Maripily Rivera" on Google, about 75% of the results were just paparazzi/gossip sites with her pictures and details of her personal life. I still think the article should be deleted, but I would also support a merger with the Alomar article. Blackjays1 (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia we decide delete nominations based on consensus, not on whether or not something "appears" to be something. Over a dozen unique references from independent secondary reliable sources were provided in the article, plus another list is provided in this discussion by another editor. The consensus so far is that every non drive-by editor here familiar with the subject of the article has objected to the delete. Also, we don't categorize notability as you have (" minor level of notability"): someone is notable or is not. The pertinent notability criteria is summarized at WP:ANS, and this article fulfills all criteria ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") several times over, as required HERE. If your objection now is with the use of the phrase "her rise to acting fame" then this is really a WP:Content dispute and WP:DISPUTE needs to be followed, not WP:AFD. But if you are saying she is not notable because she doesn't appear in any of the magazines listed at Wikipedia's List of fashion magazines article that you wikilinked us to, then that would be a fallacy for two reasons: (1) WP:N and WP:PEOPLE make no mention of appearing in a fashion magazine as a prerequisite to being considered notable, and (2) you haven't proved she doesn't appear in any of those magazines, you have simply speculated she doesn't. In any event, if you found about 75% of Google results on her were gossip sites, that would be consistent with someone, anyone, who is in show business, as is the case of this actress/model/TV host. Merging would not be appropriate here either as her article can stand on its own right. Mercy11 (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the fact that this nomination is based on consensus, otherwise I wouldn't have nominated it in the first place. Since you put your own spin on my words, let me clarify a few things for you: Rivera is a model, actress, and TV personality, therefore it made sense for me to confirm her lack of notability by searching for evidence of it in each of her professions. I was not implying that she had to appear in a major fashion magazine in order for her to be notable, but it certainly helps, and since she's a model, major fashion magazines should be the first place to search for notability. I also didn't have to prove that she didn't appear in those magazines, because I did extensive research, it wasn't speculation. As for her "acting fame", I didn't have a problem with you using that term (thus rendering a WP:DISPUTE pointless), but I quoted it to show that it was unwise to use that term, especially since her acting career is not notable (which is still a WP:AFD issue). Once again, you may have a case when it comes to her TV career, but I stand by my original opinion: delete or merge. Maybe a weak keep, but I wouldn't go that far. Blackjays1 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was already a TV personality and a celebrity before Alomar. A proper google search will show continuous media coverage, to the point of obsession, by major Spanish media as the Puerto Rican newspaper El Nuevo Dia. And searching Google News will produce recent news article that are not related to her relationship with Alomar so a merger is not appropriate. I understand that most of the sources are in Spanish but this is never a reason for deletion. --Jmundo (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I can tell (not having heard of her before this), she is non-notable in all the professions listed in the article (model, actress, TV personality), as well as several not listed (journalist, businessperson, fashion designer); however, I think she has attained notability as a celebrity, famous simply for being famous, within a sizable consumer demographic. While it seems an oddly post-modernist criterion, Wikipedia:ENT#Entertainers considers celebrities who have “a large fan base or a significant ‘cult’ following” to be notable, regardless of whether they've done anything notable. It's also worth bearing in mind that Puerto Rico has a population around 1% of the US population, so level of fame/celebrity within that community should be viewed somewhat relatively. Regarding the lack of fashion magazine covers mentioned earlier, a pre-2007 (before associating with Alomar) google search suggests her modeling career was as a bikini model rather than fashion model. --Agyle (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RWADA

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

This specialized, obscure acronym is little more than a definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete adds nothing worthile to the definition at Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (New York) Tigerboy1966 10:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon's Temple BBS

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

Article about a single relaunched Bulletin board system that does not show any sign of notability. Given sources are either self-published or do not mention the subject. Tagged for CSD, was changed to Prod - denied by an IP without giving a reason. Ben Ben (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm aware that a BBS technically isn't part of the internet. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too promotional. Also lacks notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously promotional and lacking any independent coverage. The only independent sources cited don't mention this BBS at all but are actually used to WP:SYNthesisze some claims by comparison. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am just wondering why this page should be deleted but in the list of BBS systems found at List_of_bulletin_board_systems, most of the other systems listed here do not have any sources but are allowed to stay on Wikipedia. I feel that if Solomon's Temple BBS is deleted then so should these other systems that have been on this list such as Demon_Roach_Underground, to give an example. I do see how the article can look promotional as this was not intended. I was just showing the services that the board hosts. I am also looking for suggestions for improving the article. I have been looking at adding more sources but this is hard considering most of the sources for BBS systems were from the time this system was just getting started and some sources would be on sites that are no longer on the internet.Williammea05 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find other articles failing WP:GNG, by all means nominate them for deletion. Their existence doesn't preclude deleting this one though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Schulze

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources. not established notability. But welcome to recreate if sources are found in the future--BabbaQ (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Inlinks indicate a substantial songwriting activity. Tomas e (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Servicios Ecoforestales para Agricultores

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG, in 16 years of existence, a mere 2 small gscholar hits. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel According to Seneca

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

Not notable, only source is a self-published website, only criticism is another self-published website, a couple of references in Google Books which do not appear to actually refer to the text; otherwise nothing. Nothing about it appears to be verifiable Rbreen (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC) On examining this further, I see that it was proposed for deletion in August 2012 but the process was not completed because the creating editor removed the notice and it was not removed. It was proposed [32] on the basis that "No indication or evidence of notability. All references provided are from a website that consists of the text of the play." This was endorsed on the same day: [33] I'm not sure if this counts as a second deletion or not, since it does not appear to have been continued.--Rbreen (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Another Kolbrin Bible case: what if you faked a document and nobody read it? I'm not quite as down on tektonics.org as others are but I would agree that if this thing were of any importance more establishment sources would exist. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources and no likelihood of there ever being any for what appears to be a self-published internet hoax. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centra biroji

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

Doesn't indicate notability. Laun chba ller 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think notability or otherwise may be difficult to establish since it doesn't look like there is much in English. There may be some coverage in Latvian so it would be handy if a Latvian speaker could comment.Acb314 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, cool, didn't know that what they offer is even legal. Not sure it even is much of a virtual office - they just offer to register or declare residence at their address and some legal and booking services. It looks to be small business venture to me. I am not certain though if they aren't important in the particular niche they are operating in ~~Xil (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what makes them notable, I read it more as an advert. (Might become a customer!) If the article had some additional references from the Latvian "Bizness" newspaper, Baltic Times, etc., I'd consider it more a reference article. Generally I'm for preserving any reasonable content regarding Central/Eastern/Baltic Europe, but someone would have to persuade me on this one. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article contributed by a WP:SPA editor; the firm does not appear to have (or have had) an article on the Latvian Wikipedia; referenced only to a company listing page, the article text doesn't even make claim to be anything more than a firm going about its business on the page itself (other than the unquantified and unreferenced claim to be big and growing). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case wouldn't it qualify under WP:G5?--Laun chba ller 23:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Impulse

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

Poorly sourced promotional article about a product. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Hero MotoCorp. If it isn't independently notable there is plenty of room in the parent article to cover this model. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Ossetia–United States relations

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

there is no encyclopaedic value to this article as there is no actual relations. The USA does not recognise South Ossetia but neither does the vast majority of countries. Non recognition is covered here International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia [ LibStar (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I completely agree with the nominator it serves no purpose since the US does not recongize South Ossetia. JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There's nothing meaningful to say that's not covered in that more general article (if there was a significant long-running controversy about the US's non-recognition, that might merit a separate article, but there's not). A redirect is appropriate because the article title follows a standard format for international relations articles and hence someone may search for the page, try to guess the URL, or even have an automatic script that generates links to Wikipedia pages. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I agree with the nominator that a standalone article is wholly inappropriate. However, redirects are cheap and there is useful information at the target making the redirect worthwhile. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. There are no such relations. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mina-Jacqueline Au

AfDs for this article:

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

this article survived an AfD 5 years ago when standards were not as stringent. The article reeks of self promotion, not surprising as it was created by a single purpose editor. Founding a non notable company doesn't really add to notability. And Luxury Lifestyle Connoisseur" and "Style Expert" is extremely dubious. LibStar (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Promotional. Olivier (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given we have a prior keep close, I'd like to see a stronger discussion before potentially closing as delete, so relisted. Courcelles 06:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article must be appalling for the poor woman. Has she asked for it to be deleted? I think we should oblige her. The "notable" reference has been relegated to an external link somewhere down the line. Thincat (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected it was created by herself. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Row 2 soundtrack

(Find video game sources: "Saints Row 2 soundtrack" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Lists of in-game soundtracks with no external claims of notability are classic video game trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Prod removed. Topic fails GNG by itself, as only mentions are the full track listings and no dedicated critical commentary, but a mention of the highlights in the main article's prose would make sense. czar ♔ 15:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not the worst trivia list that I've seen, but it still lacks notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints Row: The Third soundtrack contains the rest of the bundle (SR1, 3, 4). czar ♔ 21:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other three soundtracks were deleted. czar ♔ 14:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.GTA is mentioned as being more notable and having more significant cultural impact than the Saint's Row series, per other deletion articles. However, this is highly arguable, as both series have a significant following. I'd sooner suggest merging a more simplified version of the tracklisting to the actual game's article than straight deleting the articles while retaining none of the information. Would suggest the same for the GTA soundtrack articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.55.22 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — 184.14.55.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Series popularity/following (or any other series) doesn't have any impact on their notability and especially their soundtrack's individual notability. The only criteria is notability as defined by Wikipedia, namely WP:GNG. Popularity and notability very often overlap, but similarly a popular thing can be non-notable just as an unpopular thing can be notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I see soruces for teh release [34][35], but nothing offers critical commentary besides generic "here is a list of tracks". I can't find anything else of significant coverage and nothing outside the sources about the game itself. I don't suggest merging, as this will make main article unwieldy and a list of every track isn't essential information. The main article already has a sourced prose section on soundtrack and audio, which is sufficient. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 05:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception of Star Trek: The Next Generation

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

Redundant content fork, which can be included in articles for each episode and/or the series as whole. Similar to the recently deleted articles for Harry Potter films, Chronicles of Narnia films, Adaminte Makan Abu, etc. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 16:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 05:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Coaches CB30

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

Custom Coaches CB30, Custom Coaches CB80 and Custom Coaches SB50 all read like sales brochures. None are of any engineering or other significance. If there was a need for per WP:BRANCH could be held at Custom Coaches.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • 7838 Mo7838 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • 7838 Mo7838 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. No third party coverage and nothing special about it. Such an unremarkable product hardly warrants a mention in the Custom Coaches article, let alone its own. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Custom Coaches. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three, none worthy of an article. Ibsiadkgneoeb (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete all notability not established for stand alone articles of individual products. LibStar (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot, Non notable articles. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masaki Kito

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

non-notable individual Zambelo (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I am somewhat reluctant about this since I suspect that the user who started this article, Mk08111, is likely related to the subject. Also, the article is a mess. But the fact is I have seen Kito on television many times as a commentator and he does specialize in what the article says he specializes in: cult incidents and consumer fraud cases. There are a number of articles centered on him: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], etc. He also appears in other articles as the leading lawyer for some plaintiff, such as in the Agura Bokujo case [41] or in the Unification Church case [42] or the Kinmirai Tsushin case [43]. He's also often sought out by news organizations for expert opinion on Aum Supreme Truth [44], mind control [45], or other cases [46]. The article already cites some English articles that note his role as a lawyer. I'm sure I could find more if I go through the newspaper databases. The article needs to be cleaned up, especially with regard to WP:COI, but he passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per the sources above provided by Michitaro (some of which I have added to the article), I think basic notability is adequately demonstrated. --DAJF (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper Michitaro. James500 (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shantha Biotechnics. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. I. Varaprasad Reddy

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

Not obviously notable. Only ref looks like a regurgitated press release. Been around since 2009 without any third party sources. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on company he cofounded: Shantha Biotechnics Ltd. Much of the content relates to that company anyway. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Shantha Biotechnics. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Mamundzay

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable minor functionary, recreated after deletion at first AFD. Sole third party ref is a mention, no significant coverage found. Hairhorn (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Little of significance added since first AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. Borderline A7 speedy as I don't see much in the way of a claim of significance in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of post–Star Trek: The Next Generation stories

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

This is frankly fancruft, and incredibly incomplete. I see no educational value in this list - Memory Beta exists for such purposes. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is largely covered already at List of Star Trek novels, which lists them by which TV cast is featured and annotates with an in-universe timeline. All this list does is add some comic book stories, which are also already covered at List of comic books based on Star Trek: The Next Generation. Given that Star Trek spin-off fiction notes that these are non-canon, it's not even that useful to fans to combine the lists because there's no pretense that they form some coherent meta-narrative across the different forms of media. So delete as duplicative and as irrelevant trivia. postdlf (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually they've been pretty good about a coherent metanarrative in the post-Nemesis books, but that's beside the point. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even between the novels and the comic books? postdlf (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I know, but I think that they've been trying. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of overly specific detail is better covered by fansites and Star Trek wikis, and it's a redundant content fork of lists that already exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't know how an article like this survived 9 years. I would have AFD'ed it a long time ago.--173.75.214.124 (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily delete. The lack of traceable sources alone might have left a lingering possibility that it was a genuine but totally non-notable film, but the inclusion of a totally spurious "source" removed any such doubt: the article was clearly a hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corner Mission

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

If this film is real, there is no indication it is notable: no coverage in independent reliable sources (the only source given was bogus), no one notable in the production (in fact, only one name is given "George Smith"), etc. I am unable to find any reference to this film, either as "Corner Mission" or "Mission d'angle" (not even IMDb...). I am unable to find any reference to a "Caméra Forte Studios". "George Smith"? Sure, IMDb has over 20 of them...

Probably a hoax (the only edit by the original author is the creation of this article, prod removed by an IP), not notable if not. SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No target to redirect to Guerillero | My Talk 05:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virus Attack

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

This does seem to be a cartoon which was broadcast on Italian Cartoon-Network, however I was unable to find any reliable sources that might attest to this subject's notability. Furthermore, the current state of the article (unsorurced, borderline-nonsense) might be a candidate for speedy deletion. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The current article under this name simply fails WP:N but is also a commonly used term for different situations. Computer virus attack, biological virus attack, and a couple of others that seem to be in the disambiguation page of Viral. If you also feel redirect, then there might be a better place to have it point too? - Pmedema (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Virus Attack may be an incorrect translation of the title. The show might have another name in English. Unless there are sources that can attest to the show's notability then deletion is probably the safest bet. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 03:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Foxit Reader. Guerillero | My Talk 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foxit

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

No indication of notability; the only reference in the article is self-published. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ There are a couple of articles in Chinese that mention the company ([47] and [48]). This first seems press release-y. The second one also seems somewhat like a press release, though it discusses some kind of award for one of their products, Foxit Reader, but I'm not sure that it's a particularly important award. There is a listing from MBDA showing the company won an award for being a "Minority Global Technology Firm" award-- though it tied with another organization. I might be inclined to support keeping the article if there is some more substantial coverage of the company itself. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Their product Foxit Reader is fairly well known. Here are some articles in Chinese on Foxit, in addition to what user (I JethroBT) provided. [49] [50] [51] [52]. Note that the first 3 is about the central Chinese government choosing Foxit software as the designated pdf software provider. The 4th is like a press release, but it also corroborates the fact that the Chinese government procured Foxit Reader from Foxit software. Note that the 3rd one is from Xinhua, the official mouthpiece of the Chinese government. Too bad that the Xinhua website is down for me, so I couldn't get the article, only the google cached version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.240.133 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute this assertion. There are plenty evidence of notability. I understand the english media coverage is spotty other than foxit's own corporate website, but there are plenty of coverage in chinese sources, as shown by the links I have provided throughout this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.240.133 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG with these articles that represent significant coverage from independent and seemingly reliable sources (if someone wants to call them not-reliable, they'll need to back that up): [53][54][55][56]. "No indication of notability" isn't a reason for deletion at WP:AFD which has been clearly explained at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Simply doing a Google News search for Foxit produced all of these articles. Maybe these references can be disputed when it comes to establishing notability but did any delete !votes even check before !voting? These were as easy to find as it comes. If you found no references, it helps the discussion to show what searches you did that resulted in no references. Otherwise, your !vote is baseless and not very useful. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OlYeller21: These sources provide coverage of the product Foxit Reader, for which we already have an article; they do not provide significant coverage about the company. Furthermore, not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Forget everything I said. Apparently I need to get better acquainted with the differences between Foxit and Foxit Reader. OlYeller21^Talktome 07:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I have nominated this article for deletion, I believe that a redirect to Foxit Reader should be left. If we had an Articles for Discussion noticeboard I would for that reason have nominated it there instead; but we don't. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foxit Reader per Justlettersandnumbers. I think given that this is the company's most notable product and the lack of coverage of the company, this woill serve more usefully as a redirect. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it is only lack of english coverage though. In Chinese media, there are plenty of mention as shown by the link I have given above. I understand not all people could read Chinese, but a simple google translate can verify what I said. Here are some more news links to verify. All in first page of baidu search. [57][58][59][60][61][62] By the way, these articles are all about the company, and not the software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.240.133 (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to no input other than the nomination, with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to no quorum present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alie Layus

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

Notability issues were raised in 2011 but not followed up on. I think it's borderline. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thrash Or Die

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

Non-notable band. Prod has been contested.LionMans Account (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND. If the article is somehow kept, it will need almost a complete re-write due to peacock wording, tone, and formatting that isn't consistent with WP's guidelines. Dismas|^(talk) 03:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet our standards at WP:BAND. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and promotional in content and tone. JSFarman (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all of the reasons mentioned above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm happy to userfy if anyone wants to work on the article before filing at deletion review; however, in its current state, the consensus is that the article should be deleted. Daniel (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi magazines

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

List of email addresses without reliable source and seemingly without any content of value. Wikipedia is not a directory or the Yellow Pages. Alexf^(talk) 01:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete - with no prejudice for recreation as a real article about Hindi magazines which could be quite interesting if there are sources. but the current directory is not appropriate and there is nothing in the current article that would be of use in the new article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I will try my best to improve this article. Mala chaubey (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The title must be more definite (e.g. Hindi magazines in the United States) as well as the scope and the structure of the article. See also WP:L. --Søren 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I want to make correction in this article and to improve. -Mala chaubey (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: List of magazines in Hindi --Ekabhishek^talk 13:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed target of the merge suffers the exact same issues as this article!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heavy clean-up will be required but the page seems worth keeping. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- what exactly in the current article could be used in an article that would be an appropriate coverage of the topic? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under a given period if the article is managed well, it will be worth it to keep, or else delete or merge as per the suggestion by Ekabhishek. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in the United States

AfDs for this article:

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

A potentially infinite list. There are more cemeteries in a single region of a single state than there are currently on this list for the entire country. This should be left to a category and not a list. Gamaliel (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination as an indiscriminate and potentially enormous list. A category makes far more sense. A list of cemeteries is inappropriate. Edison (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep This would leave the US as the one country of 30 or so major countries that would lack such a list. See Lists of cemeteries. That there might be many items in the list is not a reason to get rid of it, but only a reason to subdivide the list by US state. Hmains (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the items on the list have their own entry and the argument for having the category and not the list fails WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP. That said, the notion of limiting the article to only entries that have Wikipedia articles or at least to only include content that is verified would be beneficial. As this list grows, WP:SPINOFF articles can always be created per state, which addresses the notion of it becoming too long. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Includes many notable cemeteries. Topic is notable per books such as The Last Great Necessity: Cemeteries in American History by David Charles Sloane (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); The American Resting Place: 400 Years of History Through Our Cemeteries and Burial Grounds by Marilyn and Reed Yalom (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008), etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Split into individual states? aycliffe^talk 12:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Split per state per arguments above. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Montgomery County, Maryland alone has upward of three hundred known cemeteries [63]; it's a safe guess that the tally for the whole country would head into the hundreds of thousands. The argument that we have these for other countries only proves that they are kept to a reasonable length because nobody here knows enough about them to populate them, which would also be the limiting factor here. The English list in particular is (the creators hope) held to a reasonable length by excluding all churchyards, an arbitrary and questionable cutoff. It's also a problem that the quality of documentation varies wildly from place to place; that map I linked to is a testimony to the thoroughness of county planners, but two other Maryland counties I checked had no similar level of documentation (e.g. there's no way that neighboring Howard County has only twenty-five cemeteries as found listed on one site). I don't see a way to do this that doesn't involve the kind of arbitrary limitation we already see, and indeed I propose that all other comprehensive lists of cemetery-by-place be deleted as well. Mangoe (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason you think this can't be broken into sub-lists (per state/county)? And/or restricted to notable cemeteries? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that lists of notable US cemeteries already exist in the form of subsets of NRHP listings; I could certainly be wrong about that. If lists that contained significantly better information than categories could be constructed, I wouldn't object, but I don't see how any division larger than a state would work, and some states (e.g. NY) might need to be broken down by county. There's also the question of what information to record.

Looking at the construction of this thing already, I see wildly differing levels of detail. Many state section list only name and location; Maryland has blue-linked articles with links to major burials. Montana on the other hand has comprehensive lists for each county e.g. List of cemeteries in Beaverhead County, Montana. If we go the latter route, List of cemeteries in Montgomery County, Maryland gets three hundred-plus entries, impeccably sourced, and it would be possible in some counties, I imagine, to not only source every cemetery but the text of every stone and perhaps even all presently unmarked burials.

I went along with making list articles of lighthouses in each US state only because it did seem to me that a tabular presentation of the major data was meaningful; the full list of lights for the country has in practice served as a checklist of article to create, and is mostly sourced to lists for each state maintained by the Coast Guard that other sources agree is largely comprehensive if not absolutely perfect. It's also hugely pushing the limits of what can be practically presented in a single list. Here I'm not seeing the same kind of certainty; instead I see a huge difference of opinion as to how much to include. As I said above, I do not believe we can source every state to the extent that apparently is possible in Montana. I could be wrong about that too, of course. But I just do not see the utility of of a unified nationwide list. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom- shove all in to a category. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a category better than a list? A category with 1000 entries is just as hard to navigate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the category were to be in alphabetical order it would be a whole lot easier to navigate and alot quicker to load compared to this article. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample blue links in the article. This list is useful for navigation. And it doesn't list every single cemetery in the nation, obviously, it list the notable ones. If it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article and isn't on any historic registry, then no reason to have it on the list. Dream Focus 00:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "infinite" argument fails WP:NOTPAPER and the category argument fails WP:CLN. Andrew (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison, Hmains, Lugnuts, Northamerica1000, and Colapeninsula. Remove the red links (or create artilces on those), and make sub-lists, but don't delete a perfectly useful list. Until very recently, perhaps the last generation, visiting cemetaries in America was a major entertainment. @Davey, some people will likely need to navigate by state. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Split - it's certainly not infinite, but it probably should be split. Greg Bard (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then Split & Specialize - I think a separate list for each state / territory is in order, plus a speciallized list, List of U.S. Veterans Cemeteries. Peaceray (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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