Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guerillero (talk | contribs) at 05:28, 16 January 2014 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Fighter G Gundam mobile suits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 6 January 8 January >

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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Open Source Lab

Stanford Open Source Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an article at all. It consists of one line of explanatory contents and a list of mostly red links. It does not have any sources and does not establish its own notability. Maybe it does better as a category. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Codename Lisa (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could be merged/redirected to Stanford University, but I'm not sure where in the article to put it - because the information at this article and at the University's own website [1] is very unclear about what kind of "lab" it is. My hunch it is a student or student/faculty group, rather than part of the University's academic programs, and too minor to mention at the University article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Tuck

Shaun Tuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable living person, non-league footballer only of public interest for a single criminal act. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 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. None of the keep votes, from SPIs, are policy based Guerillero | My Talk 05:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mastercoin

Mastercoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtful notability, lacking in reliable sources. The Forbes.com article is an opinion piece, the USA Today thing a passing mention in some kind of tech/gossip article, the rest aren't proper WP:GNG sources at all. Googling also reveals this Vice Motherboard article, which is an interview of a Mastercoin spokesperson but doesn't have any real news analysis. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the topic is not notable enough to merit an article on its own since the sources are weak, but since it seems to be about an extension of the Bitcoin protocol, perhaps a short summary could be included in the Bitcoin or the Bitcoin protocol article under an "Extensions" heading. So, my suggestion is Delete or merge. Smite-Meister (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to me a reason to edit the article to make it less advertisement like and more neutral in tone. OrangeCorner (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that since this comment was made a "Criticisms" section has been added to this article in order to provide a more balanced and neutral view point.108.95.144.117 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per SamanthaPuckettIndo. United States Man (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs improvement, yes. However I believe it to be "notable" according to the guidelines of wikipedia. I've found additional websites and third parties referencing "Mastercoin" and I'll go ahead and add a few of those links to the article now. If others want to join me in improving the article by adding more third party references they are welcome to. However to delete a well known project, which has many independent references, I don't think makes sense. OrangeCorner (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please also copypaste the new source links here so they can be discussed. Smite-Meister (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to Mastercoin Founder J.R. Willett Interview by "Lets Talk Bitcoin" in August of 2013. "Lets Talk Bitcoin" http://letstalkbitcoin.com/e37-meeting-mastercoin/#.Us2EkmRDufQ This pod cast has 10,000 + listeners interested in the Bitcoin ecosystem and this was the first of two episodes on the topic. OrangeCorner (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to recent Zee News Outlet out of India, mentions Mastercoin as one of the "namesakes" of the crypto currency ecosystem. http://zeenews.india.com/business/news/finance/bitcoin-impact-laxmicoin-seeks-regulatory-clarity-for-launch_92092.html OrangeCorner (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to December article by digital currency industry magazine Coin Desk listing Mastercoin as one of the "Alternative Cryptocurrencies Thrive in Bitcoin’s Shadow Coin Desk a Digital Currency industry website lists " OrangeCorner (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to recent "Web Bush" analysis paper that mentioned Mastercoin in the section covering "Crypto Network Technology May Go Well Beyond Payments"OrangeCorner (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hey, before you use any more time in searching for sources you should read both WP:GNG and WP:RS. Currently none of the sources you have posted above are acceptable for demonstrating the notability of the article. Blog posts and podcasts do not count unless they come from a reliable, well-established news source with editorial oversight. Passing mentions (like in the Laxmicoin article) do not count for anything, and neither do press releases. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Smite-Meister Thanks for the note. I've read the standards (before now) which you cited (just read them again) and I'll continue to offer more articles hopefully more closely in line with standard.OrangeCorner (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to article from Yahoo Finance covering Mastercoin's formation of a legal group called CODA. OrangeCorner (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New link to article from Business Insider discussing Mastercoin OrangeCorner (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this list of Mastercoin article on the Mastercoin Wiki List of Media Articles OrangeCorner (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this list of audio / video recordings about Mastercoin List of Video Interviews OrangeCorner (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that not all of these articles meet the criteria, however I believe some of them do. And from what I've just read on the standards page there isn't any defined number of sources required for "notability". Clearly there are a lot of minor sources and a few major sources, Business Insider, Yahoo Finance, USA Today, Forbes that discuss Mastercoin in some depth. There is also a lot of discussion of Mastercoin inside the digital currency community (blogs, pod casts, and industry magazines though I understand you discount these). And according to this link as for Market Cap Mastercoins are currently worth $50,000,000+ in network value, which I'm sure the value and size of something has an effective on notability thats the difference between a mom and pop shop and a brand / company which is national or global and thus notable to a sizable number of people. OrangeCorner (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Business Insider has a passing mention, as does USA Today. The Yahoo Finance link is the same press release as before. Passing mentions and press releases (or any material produced by non-independent sources) cannot be used to establish notability at all. The Forbes article is an opinion piece, also not good. You can tell from the sidebar where it explicitly says "The opinions expressed are those of the writer." Finally, Wikipedia does not care about the market cap and even if it did, coinmarketcap.com would not be a reliable source for it. Smite-Meister (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notes. I'm working in good faith to improve the article. I see we don't agree on all the parameters. None the less I would invite you to contribute to improving the article in both the quality of sources and the quality of the writing so that it meets the high standards you have put forth. OrangeCorner (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia has pretty strict policies to determine notability, and with the current sources the article does not fulfill the requirements. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A major edit was performed today that aimed to make the article adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines for links and neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not a big user of wikipedia so I have no idea how to comment, etc. However I would like to point out the significance of an independant equity research and investment banking firm, Wedbush Securities, mentioning Mastercoin. http://www.wedbush.com/research/1.3.13_Bitcoin.pdf I know it is already mentioned here, but perhaps some people here do no appreciate or fail to realize the significance of this type of research for investors and people working in the finance business. Furthermore, there is an issue with actually 2 currencies being named Mastercoin, with another having taken the name out of the whitepaper written years ago, therefore if this information source is deleted you may very well be contributing to the spread of misinformation that will lead to regular folks purchasing the wrong cryptocurrency since there isn't even a wikipedia page on a cryptocurrency that is listed in the Top 5 in the world. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.27.171.93 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Everyone is encouraged to contribute and I hope you will become an Wikipedia Editor to add your knowledge. You make a good point. Already when entering "Mastercoin" in Google the 2nd result is this Wikipedia article in question for this original (MSC) token. I agree it would certainly add to confusion if this article was deleted. If you want to vote "Keep". You simply add it to the beginning of your statement.OrangeCorner (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability. Per nom, the Forbes and USA Today refs are a Forbes writer's blog, and a borderline passing mention. The Vice article mentioned above is also borderline significant coverage, but there is no solid significant RS coverage, and as with the proliferation of weak coin-related articles, the contributor's limited contributions and article tone suggest advert. Dialectric (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments: First, the articles mentioned (Forbes, USA Today) are only included as an indicator that there is interest in the subject (they are under a relevant heading). Second, I do not think that this protocol (Master Protocol) and the associated token (Mastercoin) should be deleted because there are other "weak coin-related articles." Third, I don't think that the argument about the "contributor's limited contributions" is valid: one contributes in the subject that one is familiar with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) 03:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete - abominational failure of WP:GNG, WP:N, etc. Citation Needed | Talk 15:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please specify the type of "abominational" failure of WP:GNG? Which of the "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources","Independent of the subject", "Presumed" does the article violate? It would help the authors and contributors (I am one of them) improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — NikosBentenitis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - I vote to keep. Mastercoin was recently covered on CCTV, A Chinese Television Network. [2] The Mastercoin Foundation is a real organization with interest growing in it exponentially by the day. Sure there may be room for improvement to this Wikipedia entry, but to remove this Wikipedia entry would be a major disservice to the public. Ryankeenan111 —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Ryankeenan111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Comment - most of the keep votes are single-purpose accounts and the few legitimate ones have provided no reliable sources. Citation Needed | Talk 15:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Despite the claims above that the article has been improved, it still only lists the same two somewhat reliable sources (Forbes and USA Today), neither of which establishes notability. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

->*Keep Improve not delete. This would be like Bitcoin in the first year or two after the respective whitepaper was released. People need a resource to review information about a new implementation of an existing technology. This Wikipedia page should continue to serve that function with improvements in technical and theoretical applications. Information on the Mastercoin Board is probably extraneous, but more information on encoding, theoretical use applications, etc. could be provided. LuckyDucky (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — LuckyDucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep or Merge with the bitcoin article. I think the number of credible sources will continue to improve, but I don't think deletion is adding to the community. If anything, a merge under bitcoin would still add value to the overall community of articles on this topic. — Yamashita takai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 1389569220 (UTC).
Thanks for the note. I'm open to the idea of adding a link in the Bitcoin Wikipedia article, however a direct merge might be difficult as the page is in semi-protected status currently until March 2014.
  • Delete - I don't see the significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources that would establish notability. The only sourcing of significance is the Forbes item. I cannot find anything else to go with it. This one of many crypto currencies and protocols that have sprouted due to the popularity of Bitcoin. If it establishes itself in the future, then I would expect more coverage would come then, and an article would be justifiable. But not now -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)::[reply]
Whpq. Thanks for the note. I agree that the Mastercoin project has its roots in the Bitcoin community and that it will have to stand on its own merits. However I'd like to address the "one of many crypto currencies" point. Unlike Dogecoin, Catcoin and a hundred other "alt-coins", Mastercoin does not have a "alternative" blockchain nor does it serve as a competitor / "alternative" to Bitcoin's functionalities. Thus Mastercoin is not an "alt-coin" in the sense that those other hundred project are. As far as I'm aware Mastercoin is the only protocol thus far being built on top of the Bitcoin protocol, which also has it's own token (MSC) for access to the client application. Hence why certain media outlets have found it notable and the digital currency community has widely covered it in articles, podcasts and other discussions. I hope that information is helpful in understanding why so many are following the technical and developmental progress of this project. OrangeCorner (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no disagreement from me that it is being discussed. But it hasn't got much beyond that at this point which is why I don;t think an article is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq, If by saying the Mastercoin project "hasn't got much beyond that at this point", that is to say it isn't much beyond most "alt-coins" or much beyond a proposal / concept, then I'd put forth the following facts.
First, most of the "alt-coins" that are compared to MSC often have 1 or in many cases no full time developers. The MSC project according to the public Google Docs on the Mastercoin Foundation website has 5 full time developers. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AosWigpBxkwZdHhBaUtTZV9MWUpMVWV6U3VJV1RPbmc&usp=sharing#gid=0 Most of these "alt-coins" are produced using a tool such as this one http://coingen.io/ taking less than an hour to develop and have no value beyond a slight change in parameters of how the clone functions.
Second, most of the "alt-coins" that are compared to MSC often have no backing or formal community of any kind, just a website explaining the project. The MSC project according to the Foundation website has 8 full time staff members (excluding already mentioned developers): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AosWigpBxkwZdHhBaUtTZV9MWUpMVWV6U3VJV1RPbmc&usp=sharing#gid=0 In addition there are a number of Mastercoin Foundations across the world listed on the website: http://www.mastercoinfoundation.org/ Israel, Netherlands, Asia, California, New York and Austin each of which have their own members and community leaders.
Third, most of the "alt-coins" that are compared to MSC don't have any funding for their development. MSC in comparison as mentioned in the articles has millions of USD worth of BTC a record of which can be seen on their public ledger https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtCyUJvk_IyNdGpVcnpBN2tOczFmbVRnck5TWjZuRFE&usp=sharing#gid=0
Forth, most of the "alt-coins" that are compared to MSC only have 1 implementation or "client" which by amount of code is 99% just a folk of the original Bitcoin client. In comparison I see from the Mastercoin.org website a list of 4 clients for the Mastercoin Features all of which were developed from scratch with their own codes bases, http://wiki.mastercoin.org/index.php/Mastercoin_Balance in addition I see a list of websites that offer to exchange Mastercoins for Bitcoins, most "alt-coins" are only traded via forum posts or via 1 minor exchange. http://wiki.mastercoin.org/index.php/Trading_Mastercoins
Fifth, most of the "alt-coins" that are compared to MSC have no eco-system of applications that build on top of them. The MSC Protocol seems designed to be a platform for others projects to built on top of and thus more and more websites are being launched that operate on top of the Mastercoin features starting with the Distributed Exchange.
I offer this information having read the websites and researched the community in depth in order to offer clarity on why I find this project notable and why I expect it to be notable in the future.

OrangeCorner (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guys, lets try to stay on track here. This is about notability, not comparing technical advantages or possible advantages. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, back to notability. I believe this discussion has been very productive in improving the article in that regard. I see many contributors continuing to improve the article with a total of 19 properly formatted references now displayed. Since the discussion began additional news articles and coverage of Mastercoins has happened including the Chinese CCTV News piece. I would note that this should qualify as a source, given according to Wikipedia guidelines a source does not have to be in English and does not have to be written, so that audio and video qualify. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.2700 OrangeCorner (talk) 19:52, 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) 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristoval Nieves

Cristoval Nieves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The player does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He is a college player, selected in the 2nd round of the NHL Entry Draft, has not won any significant awards. ÞórrÓðinnTýr Eh? 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.ÞórrÓðinnTýr Eh? 22:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:22, 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 keep. Per long-standing precedents. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary

New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatantly non-notable. 17 Google hits. All but 2 are WP mirrors, this article, or the school's Facebook page. The other two aren't significant coverage. If someone can/will find offline sources, great. If not, this should be deleted. Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) high schools still have to be notable to be kept --Jakob (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic is notable it is "exempt" from AfD, in the sense that the article should not be deleted. A7 applies when the article doesn't even indicate the topic's notability, and educational institutions are explicitly excluded. Lagrange613 17:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve referencing. The argument from Google is notoriously dangerous for establishing notability, especially for relatively undeveloped countries where news coverage is not always archived online - or searched by Google. In addition the name of the school creates noise in search (particularly since the school is often listed without the "Senior Secondary" part of the name). There are a plethora of directory entries, plus news mentions such as this (entirely about a student at the school) which are not useful to filling out the article but indicate it does have the notability expected of a school. And there are probably news mentions I cannot find because they are in Hindi or some other language I can't read. As the cited notability guideline states, it is generally best to seek sources in order to improve the referencing of such an article. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not mistaken. I've been here a long time and we have this argument every few days. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Verified secondary schools always end up being kept. That equals consensus and that is how Wikipedia functions. We always have a few editors who disagree, but that doesn't change the outcome. Guidelines are guidelines; they're not set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – agreed with Yngvadottir; referencing needs to be improved. United States Man (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Verified secondary schools are typically retained in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as usual. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Since no independent sources have been provided regarding this school by the article's author (despite repeated efforts to elicit such sources from the author on the part of several editors who have been trying to shepherd this article along) and since no sources have been found by editors other than the author, there seems to be nothing on which to base a verifiable article from. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not advocate the retention of totally unsourced articles. It is merely a guideline that suggests that most (but not necessarily all) secondary schools are notable, but that the requirements of WP:ORG still apply. Given a total lack of sourcing as we have here, SCHOOLOUTCOMES recommends merging and redirecting the article to an article about the school district or locality that best fits. In this case, the only truly verifiable aspect of this school from independent sources is its mere existence, in which case I suggest a simple redirect to List of educational institutions in Allahabad. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per User:WikiDan61, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't say we should keep unreferenced articles. Even WP:SCH/AG says that "articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept" (emphasis mine) and that "It is recommended that editors only create a school article when its content shows that it already passes the notability guideline by displaying significant coverage in reliable sources." WP:NHS (which some people seem to be using to vote keep) says that "Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at Wikipedia: Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifically." and "There are thousands of high schools for which no independent reliable sources have been published." WP:NSCHOOL (which is an actual guideline) says "All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both." Can anyone point to a discussion that says that all high schools are inherently and always notable?
On another note, I have a compromise in mind: the article is redirected to List of schools in India or similar and the content is moved to the draft namespace, pending addition of reliable independent sources. --Jakob (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again; all your lengthy talks can go to WP:VILLAGEPUMP or somewhere else to debate against WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the many years I've been here I honestly can't remember an article on a verified secondary school being deleted. That's consensus. We've had this discussion so many times it's really quite tedious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as for the 'why keep?' policy-tangent question, methinks WP:GEOLAND + WP:GOVERNMENT + WP:SFoD equals WP:42, per my reading of the 0b0101th pillar
  p.s. While I'm here, guess I may as well chime in, and comment about Dah Consensus... my understanding is that the 'real' reason we almost always keep high schools, is because they symbolically represent the geogaphical-political-school-district of a physical place, and that inhabited physical places are " nigh-inherently notable" per long-standing (essay!) consensus. The argument basically is, that if a place is inhabited, and has a name, that means said place is organized politically. Thus, there *are* going to be a very large number of government documents which demonstrate WP:42 in some pedantic sense... history of human civilization... and even if said sources are not *yet* published, someday they will be. Strong consensus, but definitely pretty handwavy, and almost certainly with a strong dose of pillar five thrown in.
  Of course, methinks the real reason for the always-keep-highschools-approach is that our bait-n-switch tactic gets us a lot of new editors, proud of their high school. Some of them are headstrong; WikiDan61 can back me up on that one.  :-)   But the good ones eventually learn, and stick around as valuable wikipedians, as they go through college or internships or teaching-careers or whatever. See also, for much the same reasons, our voluminous collection of teevee and music and nakedness articles... all of them, gateway drugs to becoming WP:ADDICTED, their true (and truly insidious) purpose methinks. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
IP, replied to you on your talk page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:56, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Feedback

Google Feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. 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 - 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

StableCoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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 [9] 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]
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. 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. Lagrange613 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]
Agreed. Still not notable. Lagrange613 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". Lagrange613 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. Lagrange613 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

Last Chance to Reason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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)

James Stacy (US soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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. Lagrange613 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Centre International

Freedom Centre International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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)

Scorcher (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Cassie McFarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:17, 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]
  • 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. Lagrange613 01:37, 11 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

Lawrence Zollo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

Timeline list of Hasidic leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:14, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at 5th tier beauty pageants

Philippines at 5th tier beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Divine Predecessor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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]
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

Ilija Dodić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

Dave DeCeglie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Kay Dotrice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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

Explainer video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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. - MrX 13:39, 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]
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

Deezy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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. Ishdarian 12:04, 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:29, 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. Josh3580talk/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)

Lay (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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]
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

Informal letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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[19][20][21][22], 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]
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]

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]

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

CATZILLA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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

Sean Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Five Minutes to Twelve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
  • 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]
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]
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]
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

AfDs for this article:
Klee Irwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

AfDs for this article:
Dane Rauschenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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:
 – 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

Solestruck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

Pearl in the Mist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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

AfDs for this article:
Poets' Graves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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[23][24] 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

B.Care Medical Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

2013 siege of the Pakistani embassy in Dhaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

OpenSolaris JeOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

Principal Saif-ud-din (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Redington (India) Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Portland Maine Convention Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

East Texas Oilfield Expo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

Maripily Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
  • 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

RWADA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

Solomon's Temple BBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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]
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

Jake Schulze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Servicios Ecoforestales para Agricultores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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

Gospel According to Seneca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 [33] 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: [34] 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]
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

Centra biroji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't indicate notability. Launchballer 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?--Launchballer 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 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

South Ossetia–United States relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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]
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:
Mina-Jacqueline Au (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Saints Row 2 soundtrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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 [35][36], 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

Critical Reception of Star Trek: The Next Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Custom Coaches CB30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

K. I. Varaprasad Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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]
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:
Farid Mamundzay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

List of post–Star Trek: The Next Generation stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

Corner Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

Virus Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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, buffbills7701 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

Foxit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 ([37] and [38]). 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. [39] [40] [41] [42]. 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): [43][44][45][46]. "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. OlYeller21Talktome 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. OlYeller21Talktome 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. [47][48][49][50][51][52] 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thrash Or Die

Thrash Or Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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]
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

Hindi magazines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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]
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]
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:
List of cemeteries in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

  • 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? aycliffetalk 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 [53]; 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]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_January_7&oldid=590927724"