Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 February	10 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Shipp

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by IP User without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MLS is obviously fully-pro so the issue here is that while he played a full season for their junior squad last year, he hasn't yet played a full-season, top-flight game for the Chicago Fire, right? Obviously WP:TOOSOON but the season starts in a month. I'd be happy to see this incubated until then (until he takes the field in that first game on 9 March) but a couple of re-lists and this AFD becomes a moot point anyway. Stalwart111 00:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actually, having had a better look, I found this article in the Chicago Tribune which calls him, "one of the nation’s leading college soccer players", and this article which confirms he was, "named 2013 ACC Offensive Player of the Year and garnered All-ACC First Team honors". This article calls him, "one of college soccer's brightest stars". That's more than just routine "x signs y" coverage and it's enough for me. Stalwart111 00:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per the three sources provided above by User: Stalwart111. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was nominated for the Hermann Trophy. He has therefore competed at the highest level of amateur soccer in the USA, and meets WP:ATHLETE. Also a complete waste of our time, as he's clearly going to be appearing for the Chicago Fire in a few weeks. He's already credited with creating 2 goals last week in a friendly game against DC United [1] Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet WP:GNG. Please note - talking largely to @Nfitz: here, that statements like " he's clearly going to be appearing for the Chicago Fire in a few weeks" are not based in fact and a direct violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 12:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is a [content policy] and content policies apply to articles, not talk pages. The nomination is an argument from WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just pointing at a policy or guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Applying WP:CRYSTAL to this is a complete violation of WP:COMMONSENSE. Lets stop playing WP:WHACAMOLE Nfitz (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Stalwart, reliable substantial coverage provided of significant achievements at college level, regardless of CRYSTAL-violating aruments elsewhere in the AfD. Fenix down (talk) 12:24, 11 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake history in Custer County, Greeley County, Howard County and Valley County, Nebraska USA 1867 to 2012

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

Finally had some time this weekend to catch up on some editing and was searching for "global digital seismograph network" and came across this. The long and highly-specific title grabbed my attention. The article discusses slight to moderate earthquakes of these four counties in Nebraska.

The largest of the earthquakes that are listed in the article is the event on November 15, 1877, and it looks to be described accurately, compared with the earthquake catalog that I have, but it might not qualify for a stand alone article based on our notability guidelines. Some of the other events that are mentioned in the article are too minor to be listed in my list.

From there, the problems develop further, with poorly sourced discussions of earthquake prediction, sleeping prophets, and reincarnation, among other things

This article does mention the Humboldt Fault, but I wouldn't want to redirect this title there. It's not a likely search item. If any of these moderate events are linked to that fault, that would be the article to discuss them on, but not like this. I don't think this is salvageable. Dawnseeker2000 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absurdly specific and yet also meandering. Even if the other problems didn't exist, it would still need to be rewritten from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ninja. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Montenegro, London

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

We are not a directory, and there is no reason to suggest this building is notable in its own right. It is neither historic in character nor is the business transacted therein so vital as to confer notability on the building itself. The fact that Montenegro has an embassy in London is noted at List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom, and that appears sufficient for our purposes.

Note that I am not singling out Montenegro; this nomination could equally apply to Embassy of Moldova, London, Embassy of Cuba, London, High Commission of Tonga, London, High Commission of Saint Lucia, London, High Commission of Dominica, London, Embassy of Mauritania, London and many others in Category:Diplomatic missions in London. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all embassies are not inherently notable. these are all merely confirming embassies existence and not meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one. The others haven't actually been nominated but nothing in the list jumps out as me as being worth saving so I'd probably support deletion of those too. This ridiculous diplomati-spam needs to be curbed. None of these buildings pass WP:GNG and I think there's an argument to be made that none of them inherit notability from the relationship between the two involved countries in each case. Office buildings aren't notable because of the companies they are leased to, nor the deals done between their walls. The building itself must be notable. This one isn't. Stalwart111 00:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as an example, this one is just photos of the embassy. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are well intentioned but inappropriate pages, usually created by the same guy. Szzuk (talk) 20:23, 12 February 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. Withdrawn. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kentaro Sato

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

I'd like to withdraw this nomination for deletion. A long and painful search has delivered a few sources and indications of notability (see discussion at article's talk page).

~~There is not a single reliable independant source cited; the article seems to have been created by the person who is the topic of the article.~~

~~IMPORTANT: I've dumped here some data I've collected regarding Kentaro Sato which will hopefully help us determine better his notability or lack of it.~~

~~Some details which may or may not be useful in this discussion:~~

the creator of the article is User:Wisemanproject and Wisemanproject is the web site of Kentaro Sato.

User:Wisemanproject has only two contributions to WP: creation of Kentaro Sato and creation of a redirect to Kentaro Sato namely Ken-P (see Special:Contributions/Wisemanproject)

almost all of the IP contributors to Kentaro Sato (who incidentally have contributed almost all of the biographical material) have no other contributions to WP than inserting links to Kentaro Sato's Websites in articles like Solfege and Orchestration and links to Kentaro Sato in places like Choir, Santa Monica College (link later moved to List of Santa Monica College people) and California State University, Northridge

~~Kentaro Sato could sit here using WP as a tool for self-promotion for eight years.~~

Contact Basemetal here 04:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nominator, no independent sources for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Likely autobiography. Google search turned up no obvious signs of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 10 February 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 Bigfoot. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal studies of Bigfoot

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

Hi all, I've moved a great deal of content regarding the scientific and formal studies to the main Bigfoot page. I feel that a discussion of what exactly belongs in that section can be had for that page, but I don't feel that any of the content that I didn't move over is really reliable, notable, or relevant enough to justify keeping this page. This article has had a number of problems for about a year now and I don't think that the main Bigfoot page is too full to put the good stuff there. I look forward to hearing others' thoughts. Tegrenath (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect per Wikipedia attribution policies. Content has been copied and the source article's edit history will need to be preserved. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a merge history option as well, so the histories could be merged and this article deleted. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - seems to be an unnecessary split from Bigfoot. Redirect it back to that article until the volume of information necessitates a split. Stalwart111 00:35, 10 February 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. Anyone is welcome to set up the redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie McNair

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

This page is for an election candidate with no other claim of notability, and who is also unlikely to win. I'd nominate for speedy or PROD but the page has a particularly stubborn author. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the original author of this page I believe it should be kept. All major party (Labor, Greens, Liberal) pre selected candidates with a chance of winning (See polling information for Tasmania) are notable. In previous the Federal Election candidates who were selected by major parties were accepted as notable, included the now Federal Member for Bass whose page main credibility factor was his pre selection for the Liberal ticket. Other candidates for both Labor, Liberal and Green throughout the state with high polling numbers should be included into wikipedia. ClarkCooley (talk) 8:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep Looking at recent polling the Liberals are likely to pick up an extra seat in the devision of Bass, and with other notable works included published articles, a book, as well as receiving the first nomination from the Liberals in the State election she independently notable LauncestonWiki (talk) 4:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Tasmania doesn't have numbered tickets, so there's no such thing as the "first nomination" from a party (candidates from the same party compete against each other). Writing three newspaper articles in a regional newspaper and one children's book does not notability make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that Tasmania doesn't have numbered tickets but she was the first non sitting member to be nominated by the party, before the other two Liberal Candidates. LauncestonWiki (talk) 7:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete she doesn't yet make WP:POLITICIAN although she would if elected, but she's currently 3rd bus on the rank and the "Liberals-who-are-really-tories" would have to increase their % of the vote to gain an extra seat, so it doesn't look likely. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Draft-space. Given polling it's a distinct possibility she'll pick up a third seat for the Libs at the election, although we won't know for sure until it actually happens of course. If she makes it, then the article can be moved back into the mainspace, if not it can be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Remember that Tasmania doesn't have numbered tickets, so while the Liberals may well pick up a third seat in Bass, it could be her, Sarah Courtney, or Barry Jarvis. She's a school principal, so it's not like her profile drastically trumps either of those. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently nothing more than a candidate, by all means reinstate article if elected. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tasmanian state election, 2014. This is an appropriate outcome for candidates to a national legislature. WP:POLOUTCOMES. Enos733 (talk) 04:26, 16 February 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 (withdrawn) per discussion (non-admin closure). Stalwart111 07:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Chambers

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:TOOSOON as he has not played a professional game. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake. I didn't spot the league cup appearances... => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn then? Stalwart111 00:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes (if I knew how) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 07:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just like that. Stalwart111 07:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Shaw

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

Might be a hoax. Can't find any reliable sources, or non-wikimirrors for that matter, at all. Only time even a piece of the quote pops up is on wikimirrors. Wizardman 20:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, it's apparently not a hoax, as I was able to locate the quotation from the London Gazette. However, that source does not mention anything about a medal, and I don't know where to look to find validation. There was a website linked from the Wikipedia article about the medal, but it wanted me to pay £3 just to look at the record. I don't think that's going to happen. I suggest we contact someone from WP:MILHIST, as they're likely to know how to source this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of completeness/coverage. WP:SOLDIER as a guideline is appallingly bad, and I refuse to seriously consider that, so I base my view on how complete the article is. I am not adverse to reversing this vote if the author can do a better job of it (i.e. I want date and places of birth, death, details of any marriages, far many more details of service (while not confusing him with another Roland White who served with KOYLI and died in 1917[2], and any others), and maybe a photograph). In other words to a quality standard which would be acceptable for a local history book. This is shoddy and isn't up to standard. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny, I think WP:SOLDIER is an excellent guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's terrible. But what makes it worse in effect is that the members of the associated wikiproject set the standards rather high and then vote to delete anything that doesn't quite meet the "standards". Compare with cricket, where the bar is set very low and members vote in coordination to keep anything that just scrapes in. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, don't agree with you (and I'm not a member of the WikiProject, incidentally, and had no hand in its creation). To my mind, as someone who has written many military biographies and even more on people who have been decorated and honoured, it perfectly sums up the military people who should be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - No it doesn't. It only considers awards for "bravery", and insists that it must be awarded twice. Never mind that certain medals (DSO) are for leadership and until recently posthumous awards were VC or MID, with nothing in between. It sounds exactly like what it is - something that has been written by people who basically don't understand what they're talking about, although that is often the norm around Wikipedia. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It says nothing about "bravery", but rather "valour" - these are not the same thing. And it does not insist that a highest award be awarded twice. Soldiers =/= sportspeople, and comparing them is not apples to oranges, but apples to tomatoes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have to say I resent your suggestion that people involved in editing in this field don't know what they're talking about. I can assure you that I for one do, as a glance at my userpage will confirm! A little arrogant on your part, wouldn't you say? Strange, when you imply you do know what you're talking about, that you seem unaware that the DSO was in fact often awarded for gallantry. Probably, in fact, more often than it was awarded for simple leadership. It was actually frequently treated as a second-level gallantry decoration for officers (which is why the surviving commissioned pilots of the Dam Busters raid were all awarded the DSO, while the surviving non-commissioned pilots were awarded the CGM, which was purely a gallantry medal). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I am aware that DSOs to junior officers usually indicated they'd "just missed out" on a VC - but the DSO couldn't be awarded posthumously, which is the thing that throws the whole counting of medals system out, along with the known fact that medals were awarded somewhat haphazardly and inconsistently often for political reasons but sometimes they were not awarded to those who had committed acts of bravery/leadership for no apparent reason whatsoever. WP:SOLDIER is clearly not fit for purpose, as you've just demonstrated, and has indeed been written by people who plainly don't know what they're talking about. The comparison with other projects is entirely valid; WP:GNG is a better broader guideline. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I don't think I have demonstrated it... WP:SOLDIER generally says who is (for want of a better word) inherently notable, not who is not notable. It simply says that individuals with two second-level decorations generally will be notable by virtue of those decorations. Individuals with fewer will not be notable by simple virtue of having a medal, but that's not to say they won't be for some other reason. All your stuff about non-posthumous awards is a complete red herring. Coming back to the article currently under discussion, it is to me common sense that a soldier with one DCM and no other achievements cannot be notable except in a genealogical sense, which is not the business we are in. It doesn't matter how much the article is expanded. It just does not make him notable. We have to draw a line somewhere or there will be clamouring for every British soldier who's been mentioned in despatches or every American who's won a Bronze Star to have an article, which would be plainly ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You just demonstrated it again. A single DSO is often considered "not good enough", even when there's plenty of sources and the recipient clearly meets WP:GNG. WP:SOLDIER is simply not fit for purpose - but the worst thing is that the members of the wikiproject think it is (although as ever there appears to be very little thinking going on), and steadfastly refuse to consider anything that doesn't meet the medal-counting requirements. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The General section of the WPMILHIST notability guideline says "In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So far there is only the Gazette mention to support a claim of notability. And that is not sufficient. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um...If the recipient meets GNG, then SOLDIER is irrelevant. SOLDIER is only relevant in cases where the GNG is not otherwise clearly met. And your continued refusal to AGF is becoming wearying. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recipients of a single DCM are not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER and appears to fail WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. I was hoping to dig up additional sources, but they don't seem to exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:57, 11 February 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) 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Fire Resort

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

Not notable and no notability asserted. Refs are few and all promotional. No independednt refs. Reads like an advertisement. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a few sources, but it wasn't easy: New York Times, New York TImes, Dallas News. Most of the other hits were too promotional or routine. Google News has some local coverage that might be useful for citations, but I don't think it really does much for notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. The sources in there already show it meets the GNG. I added another, but could have added many more. There were 2300 hits on Newsbank, of which I think probably 95% are ski reports, but that still leaves what looks like at least a hundred high quality sources. Much remains to be added, e.g. the resort's water usage is a perennial issue for the town in dealing with its state water allotment and so on. For some reason it's a big deal in Texas, too. We should have a specific notability guideline for things that are a big deal in Texas.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A prominent ski resort, as noted by the other comments, and you can also find a bunch of coverage on HighBeam [3]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A S M Bazlul Karim

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Per the later, basically doesn't seem any more notable than your average paedriatric gastroenterologist. Google scholar shows his most cited work has 22 citations, and the award does not seem significant enough to bestow notability (it's for the best article submitted in a given year to the Indian Journal of Gastroenterology). Can't find any reliable secondary sources covering him in more than passing (though they could be in Bengali). Wieno (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The standard for being an authority in one's field under WP:PROF is usually applied on a world-wide basis, thus in practice not usually accepting those people who do not publish in international journals. DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 10 February 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 (all of these) to Constitution Party (United States). This was a long and complicated AfD, not just because of the number of contributors to the discussion and the volume of text written, but also the large number of articles it affects. I thus felt it worthwhile to write a longer closing statement than usual.

There's several basic questions here. First (and, admittedly, out of scope of this AfD), Is the national party notable enough to get an article? Clearly, it is. I don't see any suggestion in any of the discussion below that would hint that it's not. Next, Is there material in the individual state party articles which is (for lack of a better term) encyclopedic? Again, I think the consensus is yes, at least for some of states.

That brings us to a more complicated question, which is, What's the best way to present this material? My gut feeling is that for people who come to the encyclopedia to learn about the party, the most likely thing they're going to type into a search box is constitution party. We best serve their needs by consolidating all the information about the party into one central place. Ultimately, I think that's what this is all about; how do we best serve our users? Of course, typing constitution party into a search box gets them to Constitution Party, not Constitution Party (United States), but at least from there they can quickly navigate to Constitution Party (United States).

Looking over many of the individual state articles, it is obvious that there is a lot of boilerplate duplication between them. This means added work to maintain these articles as the future of the party unfolds. For example, many of the articles say, The party takes very conservative stances on social and fiscal issues. What happens if, in the future, the party also decides to take a stance on environmental issues? Somebody has to go update 50 individual articles to reflect this new platform. Pointless busywork.

OK, so now we're down to the mechanics. Some of the state articles have material which is worth merging into the main article. Some don't. Figuring out which is which is not going to be easy, and might possibly be contentious, but this seems like a task best left for the individual editors who are most familiar with the subject matter. A lot of the material will be best presented in tabular form, but again, that's up to the individual editors who work on the merges.

My last comment is that usually, these sorts of merges happen pretty quickly, within a day or so. Given the number of articles involved, and the complexity of the job, I would urge everybody to have a bit of patience if the task takes longer than that.

I recognize that this close is unconventional. I plead WP:IAR. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of Alabama

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

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

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

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

A series of clone articles for non-notable state branches of an insignificant political party. Recommend delete and redirect to Constitution Party (United States). Note in some cases I found state party branches that had some limited claim to viability as in the case of Nevada or the state party had disaffiliated with the national party. In those cases I passed over them and will look at them separately when I have time. Right now my eyes are crossed and fingers hurt from all the typing and tagging. Also quite a number of state branch articles have already been deleted and or turned into redirects to the national party. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [articles are about non-notable state branches of an insignificant third party]:

This sort heading added by NAEG (me); I inspected each entry in this section and as of this edit - unless I missed it - they do not have state-specific citations nor unsourced state-specific text about candidates/ballot access/etc.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alaska, nominated separately but similarly showing no evidence of independent notability and showing little evidence of its actual history (which is largely that of a splinter faction of the Alaskan Independence Party). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sort heading added by NAEG (me); I inspected each entry in this section and as of this edit they do have state-specific citations or at least some unsourced state specific text about candidates/ballot access/etc.

Delete most; but keep Colorado This "minor" party placed 2nd in the 2010 race for Colorado governor. That's notable, in my book. The others that I looked at (admittedly few) do appear to be clones of the same basic insignificance and should be deleted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not include Colorado's party in the AfD for the reasons cited above. Nevada and a few others were also passed over because they seemed to have a viable claim to notability independent of the national party or they had disaffiliated from the main party. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the states with ballot access. The Constitution Party isn't an insignificant party, and deleting a swathe of active third parties strikes me as being a bit excessive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a reasonable argument. I think the rule is that once WP:notability is established it does not fade. If true, then this should be expanded to include all states that ever had ballot access even if they don't have it now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not urging the deletion of the article about the national party. Although politically insignificant on the national level and in all but a handful of states (which I have excluded from this AfD nomination), the national party does meet WP:N. But with the few acknowledged exceptions the state branches don't even come close. There is no rational argument for these articles if you are actually paying any attention to GNG and ORG. And no, political parties do not have inherent notability. There is also considerable precedent as many of this party's state branch articles have already been deleted or redirected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parties are not less notable purely because they operate at a state level. All of the parties with ballot access are or have run candidates in major statewide races in the very recent past, and have the sources and media coverage that goes with it, especially because in many of these cases they're one of the only third parties to have ballot access. The notability is there for GNG and ORG - your value judgments about the notability of US state politics are neither here nor there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is VANDALISM!! What someone considers "insignificant" is a subjective opinion. Ad Orientem freely admits in his/her profile to being a left coast New Yorker Libertarian monarchist - all various political ideologies which strongly differ from those of the Constitution Party. Placing all of these state political parties for consideration of deletion is clearly part of a political agenda and NOT unbiased neutral as is Wiki policy. I don't see any of the Libertarian or Green party state pages flagged for deletion.Lexington62 (talk) 6:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexington62 (talk • contribs)

Reply Lexington62 I resent your accusation which is as offensive as it is unfounded. As I VERY CLEARLY STATED in the nom and subsequent comments, the issue here is not significance, but notability. The state branches of this party that I have nominated lack WP:N, end of story. I stand by that statement, which your insulting post noticeably failed to address. As I also stated very clearly I did not nominate all of the state branches because some of them have legitimate claims to notability. Further there is clear precedent in that a number of articles about other state branches have already been deleted or turned into redirects. Next, your reference to other allegedly defective articles is a clear case of WP:OTHERSTUFF and is irrelevant. Lastly, I refer you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Party of California where I nominated a state branch of a far left party with no notability. But more importantly, if you scroll down you will find that I was steered to this set of articles by the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments of user:doncram who cited them as an excuse to give a pass to another non-notable state branch of a minor political party. Frankly I am growing weary of that line of argument which seems more and more prevalent on Wikipedia these days. But the point of course is that this was not some deliberate hunt for neo and paleo-conservative articles to assault. Christian charity demands that I assume you typed in the heat of the moment and did not consciously intend to slander me or otherwise impugn my honor. And so I will forgo referring your remarks to Admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Ad Orientem, thanks for bringing up the notability issue. I am well aware of that. In fact, and for the record as can be seen in all of your edit histories, before you added deletion templates to the headers of all of the state parties, almost all of them DID HAVE template boxes indicating that they needed notability. This is because the various state party pages were all set up as Stub pages WP:WSS which clearly indicated that they were just in the beginning stages of development. This can be seen here as well at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_political_party_stubs . The various state Constitution Parties are also aware of this and are in the process of adding material and references to their respective pages. As you can see from the West Virginia CP page, it is extensively referenced and is notable for having been influential in state politics, particularly in the area of election law reforms. This not about being offensive. It is about being factual and following already well established Wiki policies to make this a more informative resource website. -Lexington62 (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite happy to reexamine any articles where legitimate evidence of WP:N can be produced. However I am wondering, why is the Constitution Party writing and editing articles about itself? This raises serious WP:COI questions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply RE: COI, Since the goal is to have all material here fully referenced by relevant sources in an encyclopedic fashion, the affiliation of the person posting the original material is quite moot. The original poster is just planting a seed. Who better to plant seeds than someone with an interest in seeing them grow? Leave the farmers alone. Thank you. Lexington62 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above – first, in response to "...as an excuse to give a pass to another non-notable state branch of a minor political party." According to what came across my watchlist, that would be Libertarian Party of California, correct? I get tired of reading bold declarations of non-notability which ultimately reveal a complete lack of familiarity with or understanding of the subject at hand. Simply put, California is a state in which the LP can claim accomplishments at the state level. Granted, these were mostly concentrated around the political heyday of Ed Clark. Still, go back to "notability doesn't fade" mentioned elsewhere in this discussion. Alaska is also a state in which the LP can claim accomplishments at the state level. Alaska Libertarian Party is also a smoldering heap which completely misses the mark in pointing out why the subject is notable. Fixing problematic or subpar material through deletion would be akin to recommending that I purchase a chainsaw this spring to swat the mosquitoes away once they arrive. Now, to the second point. You're wondering why the Constitution Party would write themselves up on here? Let me give you an example. I've witnessed a years-long issue with coverage of United States elections on Wikipedia. A small group of editors (a wannabe backbone cabal if I ever saw one) have demonstrated a seriously demented WP:OWN complex over the subject matter as a whole. New election articles are typically written so as to mention only the Democratic and Republican parties, with extreme indifference to any other parties which may have ballot access in a given state, or even that other parties would have ballot access and therefore might possibly have equal footing. Moreover, these same editors have pushed the bizarre POV that having your press release picked up by a media outlet is what makes you a candidate for public office, not actually filing any paperwork such as a declaration of candidacy statement or financial disclosure paperwork. What does this have to do with the Constitution Party? Well, this issue is how I came to recently encounter John R. Myers, the Alaska state party chair. Myers is also running for Alaska governor this year, but has not yet been certified for the ballot. He added his name to that election's article, which was initially reverted with the edit summary calling him a "self-declared candidate". That's funny, because according to their website, the Alaska Public Offices Commission has declared him a candidate, too. If the corporate media has ignored him, that's because he's in no position to make them advertising revenue. It's morally indefensible to parrot that agenda on this non-commercial website. Back to the main point, I sent a message to Mr. Myers. In doing so, I noticed that I was the first person to talk to him like a real human being, rather than inundating him with robo-messaging. He replied, with the gist of it being that he was new to Wikipedia, or at least new to the article about the election he was participating in, and *he couldn't understand why Wikipedia was only mentioning certain candidates*. Of course, I could have said just that and made my point without the Alice's Restaurant version, but I hope I've made things clearer. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was referring to Justice Party of California. Apologies for not being more clear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this comment. You articulated my own experience watching political/election articles evolve here on Wikipedia much better than I did. We should remember that most media outlets are run by for-profit entities, and thus have their own agendas for marginalizing certain candidates, which we should not automatically perpetuate here. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Constitution Party of Washington. I've added 10 news articles from around Eastern Washington that focus on the Constitution Party. The Seattle Times archive has a significant number of news hits spanning the 1950s to the 1970s. Regardless of ballot access (Washington has a top 2 primary, so it's moot) there have been enough lengthy profiles of this party in Washington written over the years to meet WP:ORG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep em all I haven't seen any reason to delete other than those who dislike templates; a widespread reality of Wikipedia. Jeremy112233 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you didn't read, because I and others said ones that have never made ballot access are not WP:NOTABLE. What we need is a list of states in that category, then we can argue about specifics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I read all the policies that might apply, and disagree with you. But you definitely should go out of your way to create that list if you are using it as a bench marker here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, with the exception of the notable state parties mentioned above, which should probably be kept. [Edit: Elaborated on this option in it's own comment, see below] Several of these state parties mentioned in this AfD, in my opinion, very obviously fail WP:N and lack enough reliable sources to make for a strong, NPOV article that meets Wikipedia's standards. However, I think it would be a fair compromise to the people interested in writing about third parties in the U.S. if we keep open to the idea of re-creating certain state party articles if their notability changes (if a state party gets ballot access, state/national news coverage, etc).

I would also like to remind everyone about WP:PERSONAL – we need to be focused not on people's alleged political affiliations, but on our goal here on how to make Wikipedia a better resource, and if these articles up for AfD can do that. :) --Aristeo (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to be clear - you're proposing we delete those without ballot access, and keep those with ballot access? The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, that sounds like a good rule of thumb. Ballot access can be a notability generating event, but we'll still need to meet the guidelines set by WP:N, such as "significant coverage" and "reliable sources". If we do delete some articles, WP:TOOSOON can apply here once the subjects of these articles get better sourced. --Aristeo (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover, our notability rules say that notability is never lost. However, I know from 1st hand 3rd party experience that ballot access can be lost. So the proposal as I understand it is to use "ballot access at any time, past or present" as the rule of thumb. After all, the Whig Party (United States) doesn't mean anything for today's elections, but they still merit an article because notability was once established and has not been lost by passage of time. Same holds for any state chapter of this bunch that experienced passing local thunder (even if it is no more). Otherwise, I agree with Aristeo. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - The American political system is based upon state-level election law and state-level political organizations. The Constitution Party is a notable entity, in WP terms, and therefore it's individual state organizations are notable. I believe that Wikipedia should have the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion of articles about political parties, their leaders, or their youth sections. This is material which SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hogwash, the Boy Scouts of America is notable, so we need an article about Johnnie in Memphis, Tenderfoot and Billy in St Paul, Star? State chapters are individually constituted and are different organizations than the national party, which we all agree is notable. That doesn't mean each state automatically gets an article for a chapter that hasn't been shown to exist beyond a fancy and a pitcher of beer in the corner of some pub the first and third fridays. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why the WP:GNG is a good enough standard for each of these articles. We don't need to raise or lower the bar for the special case of political parties -- or any other topic. If the sources cover it, then it's notable. If they don't, it's not. The least useful, most biased articles on Wikipedia are orphans with few editors looking at them. You avoid that by deleting and merging obscure articles into important ones, and by making sure that every article has sufficient sources to support the content. No sources, not content, and no article. I haven't looked at each of these articles here, but the standard for keeping or deleting them is straightforward: look for significant coverage, and cite it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree of course; ballot access is a quick proxy for "significant coverage". Articles for those states should be kept (and if nee be tagged for insufficient sources) but we can assume the sources do exist if ballot access was achieved. Ideally someone who cares would look up sources for those states and plug them in if needed. The harder work is for the rest, where there was never ballot access. For those there might still be "significant coverage" but if no one finds them before this AFD is done then articles for those states should be wasted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am dubious on the notability of the subjects and most look very much like stubs that add no real value.CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ad I think you should have started with nominating some of the ones that have little to no notability to them. In some states the Constitution Party has more of a following than other states do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I actually did look at all of the state branches that had their own pages and several had claims to notability that were independent of the national party such as Nevada and Colorado. I did not include any of them in the AfD. Likewise a few had disaffiliated from the national party, and as long as they had any evidence of ballot access I left them alone as well. The only ones I nominated are state branches of the national party with no claim to notability independent of the national party. They basically are near clones, usually citing the same sources which often make no reference to the particular state's branch of the party. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all those listed I am unable to think of any other organization where we give articles to state branches as a matter of course., even very large voluntary or commercial organizations.The state branches of many such organization are of much more significance in the world than these are, and will have more news items--though they will be routine news items, l or press releases, like here. The argument has been that this is excessive and unencyclopedic proliferation, and does harm to the concept of an encyclopedia. GNG is a test for whether something could have an article, not whether it should have an article. I'm certainly prepared to argue for very strong favor to political and religious bodies, over other sorts of organizations, because these are the sort of ideas that should never be suppressed of grounds of unpopularity, but including the state branches does not suppress anything of significance if we include an article on the main party. but i find this is carrying it beyond the place of reason. I do not see what point of information is gained. A single table listing the candidates in major elections would do, and we already have it at Electoral history of the Constitution Party (United States). DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point about the page you just directed us to--it is negatively tagged. Clearly we should not simply rely on old, out of date as the tag calls it, pages in lieu of items that could provide more context. Sure, delete them all, but really, that's the page you feel covers all things with high quality? Also, I feel there is a great deal of laziness above in trying to delete a swath of articles without looking into the merits of each in terms of articles available. There could be hundreds for many of them, but no one here seems to care :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To try to hone in on a consensus here, I noticed that a number of "keep" comments have been made because there's one or two select articles nominated here (ex. Constitution Party of Washington was mentioned) that may warrant enough notability to be kept–or at the very least–merit its own separate AfD discussion.

For those of you that have a particular article from that list that should be kept, could we talk about how that article's subject meets WP:ORG? --Aristeo (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea and I have no state-specific comment to offer. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:ORG. References mean nothing if they are not reliable or notable, agreed with Ad and Aristeo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of sloppy, lazy comments in this discussion. I carpet-bombed Constitution Party of Washington with far more reliable sources than are necessary to meet WP:ORG. I don't think the closing admin should take any "delete all" !vote seriously from anyone who hasn't actually done a search for all 30 articles and can come back and honestly say that each and every one fails WP:ORG. I have a feeling that if I made the same effort for the other 29 that I did for the Washington article, I'd find the sources to meet the notability minimum for at least a few.
  Another note: one of the sources I found was about the Constitution Party of Washington protesting marriage equality, and another was about them protesting a Hindu statue in Idaho. So our sources are telling us that this party is notable not only for electoral activities, but also for their reactionary activism in other areas. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AfD nom for Washington State article Although I still think it in most respects is an unnecessary duplication of what is covered in the article on the national party, enough sources have been added to make a credible argument for independent notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As I pointed out on that page, there is no rationale to justify a separate AFD for Alaska (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alaska). Is it possible to merge the two? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wyoming & West Virginia - Plenty of notable and relevant references for both.Lexington62 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd keep them all. Sure they're stubs, and need sources. Third parties in the US are historically notable at shaping policies and having political effects despite small membership and little electoral success. That may or may not be the case here, but there likely aren't that many editors aware of what's happening behind the scenes. Leave the stubs in place so that when one does come along, he doesn't have to start from scratch. Speaking as an editor, it's much easier to add a paragraph and a couple references to an existing article, than to create an all-new article. If these articles are deleted, the same review should be given to all the LP and GP state affiliates as well, lest this whole process scream "bias". ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true, then we would also need 50 state chapter stub articles for the WkljljLKJDLKj Party and also 50 state chapter stub articles for the BLlzlzzzllzblA Party because, after all, someday, somehow, maybe, they might be notable.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, as I said, apply the same criteria to the LP and GP state parties, or it's clear this process is not objective and neutral. Let's add them to this AfD as well. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To satisfy you that this is "objective and neutral" do we need to include Every non-notable local branch of every minor party from every nation on earth, or just the ones on your own ~~shitlist~~ mind? At your talk page it became quite clear you are not up to speed on current policies etc that apply. So please add to your reading material WP:AGF and WP:SOFIXIT. If you want to start an AFD for other 3rd party state chapters.... that would be wonderful and appreciated because we really should clean more crap up. But please don't spit on people picking up doggie doodoo here just because some other party's dog made some messes on the other side of the street. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Ad Orientem for the clarification above. The reason I asked for clarification is that your name is attached to a proposal to merge Libertarian Party of California to the national party article. From what else I've seen, this is perhaps part of a greater effort involving possible deletion of scores of articles on a blanket presumption of non-notability. From the articles I've read, the real problem is that they're a lot of empty content for content's sake, in many cases obscuring their actual notability or claim to such, and notability is better resolved on a case-by-case basis, such as we're doing now. The LP has a significant claim to notability by state in a number of cases; the GP, not so much. The GP would certainly be notable on a state level in Alaska, where they previously had ballot access/official party recognition, and the Jim Sykes lawsuit which launched the party is significant in the context of ballot access case law. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except you're not "picking up doggie doodoo" - you're trying to blow a big hole in Wikipedia's coverage of US state-level politics for no good reason, and supporting the deletion of articles that plainly pass the notability guidelines by putting them up as an omnibus nomination so you can make sweeping claims without having to actually pay any attention to the sources on any of the articles. This nomination is just an attempt to try to end-run Wikipedia's notability guidelines because a few of you don't think US state politics should have detailed coverage on Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you must be talking about this version of this example which was live when you posted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a discussion about the Pennsylvania party. It's a discussion about most of the Constitution Party state parties in the US, all of which have different sources and different levels of notability. You're trying to delete tons of articles based on cherry-picking one that may not have (in the article's current state) obvious guide to notability. Yet the articles you're trying to delete - as can be seen by the many responses here regarding specific states - include plenty that plainly meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Again, you're trying to do an end-run around Wikipedia's notability guidelines with this bogus omnibus nomination and it stinks. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my mistake, I guess you must have meant this other one. Strange you have enough time to insult your co-editors but not enough time to actually try to improve these articles you're in such a tizzy about. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Utah - Notable, reliable, relevant references. - Lexington62 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see no reason why these state-level organizations should inherit notability from their national-level partner. I see no major precedent that doesn't fall into WP:OTHERSTUFF and there's no guideline that indicates that notability should be inherited. Some of these subjects don't seem notable at all (no independent and reliable sources in the article and none are coming up in Google or Google News searches) while others are certainly notable per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I think that's incredibly obvious. I was hoping that this discussion would come to that conclusion and start moving towards subject-by-subject decisions but it seems to have degraded into all-or-nothing arguments.

To salvage something out of this AfD, I think the easiest thing to do would be to decide with consensus which articles satisfy WP:N on a case-by-case basis. After the AfD is closed, any articles that were left over can be taken to other/another AfD(s) where we're not trying to determine the notability of 50 subjects at one time. That's difficult even when political opinions aren't consciously or subconsciously affecting the discussion.

This proposal doesn't follow WP:AFD but I think that's acceptable if the alternative is posting ~50 individual AfDs. Even so, I'd support 50 separate AfDs over an all-or-nothing decision. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I see that there are 32 (31 after a withdrawal). My opinion hasn't changed. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree this is the way to go. Notability isn't inherited from the national party, each organisation has to have its own notability established. And nothing here depends upon ChristTrekker's suggestion that other party organisations may not be notable, ChristTrekker is free to take any article to AfD so long as he first checks the organisation against our notability criteria. Let's drop that line of discussion and also the personal attacks. This was made a lot more difficult when someone removed redirects of non-notable parties, creating new articles. It's hard to deal with a lot of related articles the vast majority of which are non-notable. Bundling made sense but we still have to winnow the wheat from the chaff. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I have started a sort in the original post, strictly according to the presence of a citation uniquely about the state or at least a teensy bit of state specific text for which a cite might be found someday. I'm not suggesting that each state in that group is in fact notable, but certainly the untweaked templates are not and do not inherit notability from the national article so at least in that first section of the sort those states should either get citations showing notability or should be deleted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: NewsAndEventsGuy's re-sorting just accentuates the fact that the first mentioned, previously, have all been fixed up. Putting other ones first is just obscuring the fact that any one of these seems to be relatively easily justified by additions of sources. So I think the order should be resorted back, and I object to the call that all must now be fixed on basis of AFD is not for cleanup...I vote Keep All below. --do ncr am 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, on basis of apparent notability of several once examined (the first three that were listed in original order in the nom, Constitution Party of Wyoming, Constitution Party of West Virginia, Constitution Party of Utah, while note someone has just changed the ordering of the list), on basis of wp:BEFORE onus on the nominator to search for sources before nominating at AFD, on basis of "AFD is not for cleanup" and on basis of the relative selectivity of this AFD to go after all the U.S. state parties of one political party and not others. At the previously mentioned [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Party of California, I suggested that a general RFC about notability standards for state parties would probably be good. This multi-part AFD is not the right venue to come collegially to a good standard, with education of interested ~~persons~~editors for all the U.S. political parties articles. --doncram 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify your statement. If you feel that an AfD must have one conclusion for all listed articles, that simply isn't true. Some can be deleted while others are !deleted. Alternately, I chose to assume that you're not arguing that 31 subjects are notable based on your assessment of 3 articles because there's no guideline or even precedent that supports that argument.

Your opinion that state parties are notable outside of current WP:N standards is noted but not supported by any policies, guidelines, or even WP:OTHERSTUFF evidence. You have also suggested that... someone... should start an RfC. Please, if you feel that WP:N should be changed to include state level parties, by all mean, take the steps necessary. Until then, your argument just seems to be an WP:IAR argument and I don't see any reason to ignore current guidelines.

I'm having a hard time deciphering your last sentece. If you're saying that we should keep the article to educate "interested people for all the U.S. political parties", I respectfully disagree that we should keep an article because it's educational. There's a standard for includion of subjects covered at WP:N and the goal of educating is and to my knowledge, has never been a goal for this project. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant an RFC to serve/educate the wikipedia editors of the wikipedia articles on state parties, have edited my comment to clarify that. My argument is not IAR. The first 3 of many nominated have now been reviewed, and voila there are a lot of sources for them. It is reasonable to expect that sources are available for most or all of the others, just not done yet. What should be done is tag the articles for more development. And perhaps an RFC about what standards should be, but I don't care to launch that myself, as I don't see a big problem here.

Why not nominate all articles in Wikipedia for deletion? That would force all the bad ones to be improved immediately, right? Well, that is not acceptable because it would be forcing editors to drop everything else to respond, and to cleanup upon demand of one editor who hasn't done the necessary work. Essay WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP expresses that. --do ncr am 21:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the links, huh? Ok....

WP:NOTABILITY = policy
WP:DELETE = policy
WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP = essay and since you like essays please see Wikipedia:Essays are not policy and WP:SOFIXIT. I mean, you've got time to complain here, so why not spend that more constructively by addressing the problems i.e., by hunting up and adding sources to states that are missing state-specifics? Unless their deletion really doesn't matter to you of course. In that case, don't bother. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still falsely claiming these support your argument - which is exactly why you just reordered the list to hide the fact that those at the original top had been easily sourced given the opportunity. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF; I reordered the list because a bunch of us opined that someone needed to look at each of these to figure out which ones were essentially empty carbon copies with no apparent notabilit independent of the national party. If it's so easy to source 'em.... well, go right ahead! If one gets deleted, bring it back to life with source later. Wikipedia is not an emergency. Don't bitch.... fix. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge almoust all with Constitution Party - I vote to merge almoust all of the pages with the main party page except of a few, mentioned above, who are clearly notable in their states. I would do this to all other parties. Reasson are simple. How many pages of thesame party are we to have? Lets take one example, Russia. Russia is divided into 82 regions. Each party have both national and regional party. Lets just say 5-10 party times 82 regions! I can do that but I guess others on wiki would not like it. To many pages on thesame thing right. Very few of the state partys except of Utah and Colorado have made any bigger notability in their own state. For a person who would like to know more about Constitution Party it would be way easier to do it thru the main party page where all this state ones are merged to than go thru each and every one of them.Stepojevac (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I had been planning on saying much the same thing after AFD closes regarding whatever states survive NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects won't last thirty seconds, so don't even bother. You won't succeed in trying to *again* circumvent Wikipedia's procedures by deleting-via-redirect articles you couldn't get a consensus to delete. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add to my !vote Merge remainder, under WP:Alternatives to deletion#Merge which says "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." While sources might come along in the future, if defenders of these clone articles haven't found existing ones by the time this closes the sources probably don't exist and the chapters are pretty minor. If any of them come to life in the future then that would be the time to start a state-specific article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be comfortable with a merge and redirect of the articles. Despite the added sources, almost all provide no substantive information that is not already in the main party's article. And I concur that this should be the approach to taken with all political parties where there is not a strong claim to independent notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge almoust all with Constitution Party Many of the articles offer nothing substantive that is not in the national part page and are a single paragraph. Indeed, a few of the more fleshed out state articles give the same candidates for running for national office, but nothing different than the national party.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those without ballot access - or merge and redirect as suggested by others above. GNG is the minimum and not all of these state parties meet the criteria for notability. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 18 February 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn without outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Brandwag highschool ( Uitenhage)

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

I nominated this page for deletion because the school does not show notability and does not show any context either. I tried to A7 this article but it was unsuccessful. Aerospeed (Talk) 18:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator - Given the points stated below, I will withdraw my nomination and support the renaming of the page to "Hoërskool Brandwag." I was unaware that schools are by default notable. Aerospeed (Talk) 20:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article is now an unreferenced, poorly written stub, well-established consensus described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is that accredited degree-awarding secondary schools are notable unless the article is a hoax. A Google search finds plenty of information about the school, so the article should be expanded and referenced, not deleted. Once this debate has ended, the article should be moved to a better name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nom - This article is also an orphan. Aerospeed (Talk) 18:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Orphan status is not a reason for deletion. The school can easily be mentioned and linked in a section about education in the town where it is located. By the way, I've begun improving the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I declined the A7, which by its own language, does not apply to schools. Also, A1 doesn't apply either as the context was clear. If the article is kept after discussion, it should be moved to a more accurate title.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article should be moved to Hoërskool Brandwag. I have expanded the article and added several references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Hoërskool Brandwag. Understand where the nominator is coming from but high schools are generally considered notable and the title can be resolved. Stalwart111 00:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are notable by long-standing consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KMF Mal Ajaks

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

Non-notable local club. The article contains no references, and I haven't been able to locate any substantial verifiable evidence of coverage – in fact, all I could find was their Facebook page. PROD was removed without explanation by sock of article creator. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable youth team. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability whatsoever. Fenix down (talk) 12:21, 11 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Hansen

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

PROD contested by article creator. This article is about a young player who has not received significant coverage (failing WP:GNG) and who has not played in a fully-professional league (failing WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 18:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - fails WP:NFOOTY but will likely only fail that standard for less than a fortnight. His club play their first Liga game on 23 February and if he takes the field in a full-professional Danish Superliga game he'll pass. He doesn't yet and he might get hit by a bus between now and then (which would likely generate enough coverage for him to pass WP:GNG) but if this goes the full 7 days then we'll likely be deleting an article within a week of the subject meeting our inclusion criteria. Stalwart111 00:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and Wikipedia is not a WP:XBALL. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a waste of people's time. Even if it does technically meet the delete criteria for a few more weeks, it will be recreated when they become notable. Why not simply keep a tally of such articles when you come across them, and check them a few weeks later to see if they should be deleted or not. Nfitz (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from being an invalid argument per WP:CRYSTAL, the claim that he will probably make his debut in a few weeks is simply false. He is Brøndby's third or fourth choice goalkeeper, meaning the likelihood of him make his debut any time soon practically zero. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, noting NFitz's continuing desire to avoid dealing with CRYSTAL in AfDs and his comment to be nonsensical, essentially saying "I accept this players currently not notable, but lets keep the article for an indeterminate period of time to see if he continues to not be notable". Fenix down (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you guys fail :D He plays at Brøndby IF and that's not just a local club. It's not such a famous danish football club but Brøndby IF is a "name", if you know what i mean ^^ KEEP --Saviour1981 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue isn't the club. The issue is that he's never actually played for them ... yet. Ergo some editors feel it's absolutely necessary to delete the article, let someone recreate it in a few weeks, and then go to the trouble of merging the edit histories of two different pages. Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as we would have literally thousands of articles about people who have not played at a professional level if the guidelines permitted articles on the basis that a player might play at that level in some indeterminate future period. All professional clubs that I know of operate at least one (if not several) youth team(s) full of such players. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' That's just not true. There's a difference between a player who has now signed with a fully-professional team, and is expected to play as soon as the season resumes, and an academy player. In one case it's hit and miss whether they play or not every. In the other, there's a 99% or so chance we'll be undeleting the article within weeks. We need to apply WP:COMMONSENSE. Nfitz (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's the fourth choice keeper, there is no indication whatsoever that he will be playing in the next few weeks! Fenix down (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 03:14, 14 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary astrology

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

This appears to have some small following amongst a handful of astrologers with few hits amongst unreliable sources, but has never received any mainstream attention at all. Fails notability criteria as a result WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Fringe#Notability: A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers.) IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article was nominated before and deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolutionary_astrology but then someone recreated it 3 months after. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stub No in-line citations. References in further reading to a small number of books mostly self-pub or from a single small new-age press. No clear notability. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is idiotic garbage. But is it notable idiotic garbage? I submit that it is not, and say delete. DS (talk) 03:07, 18 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bowery Capital

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

very small firm; all refs based on press releases. notable founders do not necessarily make for a notable company DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of Alaska

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

A non-notable state branch of an insignificant political party. Sources are biased and or primary and hugely fail WP:RS Recommend delete and redirect to Constitution Party (United States). Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect There seems to be nothing notable by our criteria for this state party. The non-primary sources are fine, although they apply to the Constitution Party and are only in the article to describe this parent party. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that this entity is not recognized (and has not been recognized) as a political party by the Alaska Division of Elections, nor has elected anyone to partisan office. Of the other parties found in Category:Political parties in Alaska, all of those parties have been recognized at one point in time, and all but the Green Party have elected candidates to partisan office in Alaska. This party was founded in 2010, yet their presidential ticket was not on the Alaska ballot in 2012. The party has only fielded one candidate thus far, the party's chair (who has also been active recently writing himself up on Wikipedia, BTW), who has only filed financial disclosure paperwork to run for governor in this year's election, but not a nominating petition to appear on the general election ballot (as is customary for candidates not affiliated with a recognized party). Voter registration statistics for February 2014 shows a total of 161 voters registered as affiliated with the party, out of a total of 497,984 registered voters in Alaska. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There is no rationale given as to why this nomination is separate from the simultaneous blanket nomination for CP state party articles occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was made before I realized how many state branch articles there were, and that the vast majority had no claim to notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 13 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of California

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

A non-notable state branch of an insignificant political party. Sources are biased and or primary and hugely fail WP:RS Recommend delete and redirect to Constitution Party (United States). Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 February 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. I'm not an admin, but I did a double take when I saw the deletion notice and came here out of curiosity. I was going to vote speedy keep, but I think it's pretty clear what the consensus is.—Neil 02:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Federal popular initiative "against mass immigration"

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

Article is a needless content fork of Swiss referendums, 2014, with less information, a lack of references and an incorrect title. I see no need for a separate article. Article was initially redirected to the Swiss referendums one, then prodded after the redirect was undone. The prod was then removed, so bringing it to AfD. Number 5 7 16:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article still needs improvement, its aim is to provide much more detail that the page about multiple votations that you mentioned. Féd Poppy (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You can expand the Swiss referendums page (which is still a stub( without creating a separate article. Number 5 7 17:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could accept that it takes some time to develop a long developed article and encourage users to contribute rather than deleting content. Féd Poppy (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

My point is that you should be developing the existing article, not creating a pointless contentfork. Number 5 7 17:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the approach that you advocate is that it would be likely to result in edit wars over precisely when to spin off a daughter article. I would suggest that if there is enough coverage to justify a daughter article, we should hesitate to insist on a merge only because of how much content happens to be present at the moment. It should be possible to copy and paste all the material from the parent article in a matter of minutes if that has not already been done. James500 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Swiss voters have just voted to pass this, I think it will have sufficient GNG sources once the media gets hold of it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is obviously notable, but the question is why a content fork was needed from the article that originally covered it? Number 5 7 18:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The outcome of the referendum is front page news in European news media, e.g. The Guardian. Given the amount of coverage, and the amount of political issues the implementation is likely to give rise to, a dedicated subarticle per WP:SS is appropriate. Sandstein 18:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a historic Swiss referendum with huge implications. The current content is obviously horrible, but this will hopefully change soon. --Lukati (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is definitely notable and it makes sense to have a separate article for it as the three referendums in the mother article deals with very varied issues: abortion, immigration and financing of railway infrastructure. The article should be renamed though as I don't like to see quotation marks in article titles. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability. Vote widely discussed in European media and by European politicians. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. Even the nominator admits that the topic is obviously notable. There is no need for this to continue. James500 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is notable, but it is covered in far more depth in the original article. Why is a fork with less content required? Number 57 08:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't you just expand the article? And as for the title being incorrect, why don't you just move the article? James500 (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number57: There is no natural connection between the topics in the mother article (immigration, abortion, railway structures), expcept that they are referendums held on the same day. It's natural to make separate articles for those referendums that are particular significant. An article on the immigration referendum naturally relates to other articles on immigration; while the abortion referendum naturally relates to other articles on abortion etc. (allthough the abortion referendum may not be so significant that it needs its own article). The immigration referendum will also relate to the Switzerland-EU relation in a way that the two other referendums will not. In the US, there are also often elections and referendums held on the same day and many of these will have separate articles, like for instance California Proposition 8 (2008) (one of many referendums in California that day). Iselilja (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article about an important and actual issue that should be improved rather than deletedGelehrter11 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the above comment from the top of this page because the nomination is supposed to go at the top, and I think that the placing of the above comment at the top of the page would be likely to cause confusion. James500 (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article in its state aside, this has been a huge deal in the country with bolts of reactions from countries all around the globe, particularily all over the EU. The subject is most definitely notable and merits its own article. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 11:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clear-cut pass of WP:GNG & WP:LASTING. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 11:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Useful. But perhaps re-titled as Federal popular initiative “Against Mass Immigration”? --Mlang.Finn (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about speedykeep for the clear reasons above? --193.5.216.100 (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Within the next few months we will see if this becomes a huge issue for the EU, and the updates will make the article stand-alone. If not, it may then be deleted if the Swiss Referendum page can easily contain the information. comment added by 76.68.250.205 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously a good deal of secondary source coverage from multiple respected references. — Cirt (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable referendum widely covered in the international press and with many long-term implications. I wonder if User:Number 57 would have even thought of deleting an article about one of the Referendums in the United Kingdom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Underlying lk: Clearly you are unfamiliar with my contributions. I've created well over 100 articles on Swiss referendums (almost all the articles in Category:Referendums in Switzerland are my work), but because there are so damn many (more than 500 to date), I have combined them into articles dealing with referendums in each year, hence why I don't think a separate article to Swiss referendums, 2014 (also an article I started) is necessary. Number 57 09:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Combining them was a good idea and I thank you for your work; however some referendums are more important than others, and this one clearly deserves its own article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:39, 12 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Nicholas Candy

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

WP:N/CA & WP:BLP1E apply. The murder itself was not so unusual, and the perpetrator (Richard Keech) was unusual in the sense he was a former WWII POW. (The now deleted Keech article was largely a tribute provided by his son.) The unusualness of these figures & events does not make them notable enough for WP inclusion. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete it This article has no historical value, no relevance to anyone but for five people in the Keech and candy clans. The Keech side wants to put this in the past and move on. The article was originally written by someone on the candy side to harass the keech clan. They forget one member of the keech clan is also a candy, nick's son. He wants it gone too. (Steven Richard Keech (Son of Richard Keech) 17:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC))
Delete, the notability of the murder is low, and mostly derived from interest in the perpetrator, who has just been found not to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, delete now per consensus to delete also the murder article that has already been established in WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Keech. I can't see any benefit in letting this run another seven days. —Kusma (t·c) 18:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All murders are tragic, but relatively few are notable in the encyclopedic sense. Although this crime had some unusual aspects, and received routine coverage in local news media, I don't think the depth of coverage justifies an article. It does not seem to be of any historic significance. It seems clear that the article is causing grief to some of the survivors, and that is an additional factor in a decision to delete an article about a crime of doubtful notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PythonTeX

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

Non-notable piece of software, written about in a rather promotional tone. Sources are affiliated; first source is a paper from the Python in Science (SciPy) conference that has not yet been cited according to GScholar. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. please elaborate on the promotional tone. I am not affiliated to the project but rather convinced of its relevance to modern scientific publishing. Chymæra (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The worst promotional content ("fast, user-friendly access to Python from within LaTeX") was removed. What remains is the issue of notability, which has not been established as per WP:GNG. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found some brief independent coverage in a 2013 book [4], but that's about it. Perhaps this was created too soon. I think it could be merged/mentioned somewhere using that wp:secondary source. Probably a brief mention at TeX, although I think a spin-off list article (List of TeX libraries?) should be create at some point. There's a lot of non-core TeX stuff that could be covered from secondary sources, but probably isn't notable enough by itself (though stuff like pstricks, TIPA (software) etc. seems to have their own pages, not all of which are probably justified.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:19, 10 February 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) 01:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Groningen (province)

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

Only sources are published by one source, which is the province of Groningen itself and thus a primary source. I consider this to be a hallmark of nonnotability. Laun chba ller 15:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that other sources are not listed, does not mean they don't exist. There is the royal decree with which it was officially enacted. There are books describing coats of arms that include the province of Groningen. Note that you do not claim it is not notable, only that the sources are inadequate, the lack of multiple sources is not, by itself, a reason to delete the article. CRwikiCA talk 20:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coat of arms of a country subdivision is a notable subject. I have added two additional sources: a document of the High Council of Nobility and a webpage of the Ministry of Defence. – Editør (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if the sources are few, the subject itself can very well be notable. The province of Groningen is notable, therefore its arms are notable. The arms is the visual equivalent to the name and you wouldn't write about the province without including its name. To claim a lack of notability is preposterous. Arms Jones (talk) 11:40, 10 February 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. obvious WP:OR / WP:SYNTH slakr^\ talk / 12:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal coalition

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

Never has a so well-sourced article been nominated for deletion. Unfortunately, this appears to be a very glaring case of WP:OR. This article is entirely sourced to print books so I have not been able to check each one, however, I do have two Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and the Ideological History of American Liberalism and Hubert Humphrey and neither of these texts use "Liberal coalition" as a proper name. They may include phrases like "a liberal coalition was formed" to refer to various coalitions that have come into being at one time or another but the article indicates the existence of a "Liberal coalition" (proper name) in the United States as a substantial and enduring concept in political science, which it doesn't appear to be. In addition to the above two books I have done an extensive web search - as well as searching the archives of Current History and trying to look this up in the Oxford Handbook of Political Science - and the only use of the phrase "Liberal coalition" (proper name) to refer to an ordered, organized entity is in reference to transient political groupings, not an organized, formal, enduring entity which the article veers between strongly implying and directly indicating. A more appropriate article is Modern liberalism in the United States, which correctly describes a concept versus a thing. For the same reasons I think Conservative Coalition will also need to be deleted, but I haven't had time to more thoroughly review it yet. BlueSalix (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karaikal gang rape

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. This doesn't seem comparable to i.e. 2012 Delhi gang rape in terms of social impact or sustained coverage. Not every crime that is reported on is notable, and this one doesn't seem to be one of the exceptions. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could the content be merged with the article on the 2012 Delhi rapes? It could be used as a follow-up for the events that happened, perhaps showing that there was events even after the major raping. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another merge target could be Rape in India. There are some sub-articles like Rape in Jammu and Kashmir but not one for Tamil Nadu --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTNEWS, as per the nominator. This was not even page 1 news when it happened. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:14, 16 February 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:A7 slakr^\ talk / 12:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US Arab Chamber of Commerce

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

Article is about an organistion without significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that there are multiple organisations that are arab chambers of commerce operating in the USA so care needs to be taken in reviewing search results. Whpq (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Itelligence

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, all sources are affiliated. GNews turns up some additional sources, but not enough to establish notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks a lot like an advertisement, they list all their solutions like they're trying to sell something. Add the fact that the sources are affiliated and unreliable, and that the page is an orphan, and you're possibly looking at a speedy deletion. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The awards declared in the article are from affiliate firms so lack independence. Highbeam turns up a variety of PR announcements but I am seeing nothing to indicate attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 12 February 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 Bio-inspired computing. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biologically inspired algorithms

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

Unsourced list-like article about a rather haphazard collection of computer science techniques. Unless a reliable source can be found that establishes the notability of the category of "biologically inspired algorithms" per se, I don't see why this article should be kept. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bio-inspired computing which has similar lists, but has references (or at least further readings), too. While there are 1,220 hits for "biologically inspired algorithms" on GScholar and the topic is likely notable, the article as it stands adds nothing to what is already in Bio-inspired computing. Users will be best served by a redirect to that article. No prejudice against an enterprising editor who wishes to develop the redirect on this topic into a proper article. --Mark viking (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As Mark viking already said, this is definitely a notable topic but there is nothing in the nominated article worth keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (change of opinion). I should have done more searching before nominating. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bio-inspired computing per Mark viking. -- 101.119.28.55 (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thiese might be useful references:

Neumann, Frank; Witt, Carsten (2010). Bioinspired computation in combinatorial optimization. Algorithms and their computational complexity. Natural Computing Series. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-642-16543-6. Zbl 1223.68002.
Brabazon, Anthony; O’Neill, Michael (2006). Biologically inspired algorithms for financial modelling. Natural Computing Series. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 3-540-26252-0. Zbl 1117.91030.

Deltahedron (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you didn't add those to the article. I've done so. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read them, so can hardly cite them as references for any of the content. Deltahedron (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into bio-inspired computing, and then consider whether to change the title of that article to "biologically inspired computing". Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into bio-inspired computing per WP:SNOW.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:35, 15 February 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:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Bang Cosmology Dissidents

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE violation. No independent sources that I know of make this kind of demarcation of who is a "dissident". jps (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'd suggest nominating the stub articles that have been listed for deletion as well, like what happened with Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Perhaps you could speedy this article under an A1 or even an A3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerospeed (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As violation of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH inherent to these type of list articles without a source showing this list is notable. Yobol (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Calling people "dissidents" without sources sounds like a WP:BLP violation. I see no evidence of notability, but plenty of evidence that the creator of this article aims to promote his own fringe views (Just read their userpage: User:Wavyinfinity). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of continued POV pushing of clear pseudoscience etc by this editor, evidenced by this article creation and others, I have filed an arbitration enforcement request: WP:AE. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing from here is salvageable into any type of semi related article that might be created that would actually fall within encyclopedic parameters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The word "dissident" in the title is already POV, insinuating that the individuals are persecuted for their beliefs by the jackbooted brownshirts of the authoritarian regime. Also the qualities of the listed individuals, and their views on cosmology, vary widely, from genuine scientists to outright cranks, and some died years ago, before the most recent evidence, and yet the "list" makes no distinction between historical criticisms and current contemporary criticisms. I think the existing article on the Big Bang would be the best place to present any notable and reputable criticisms, referencicng the scientists who have voiced those criticisms in context.Urgent01 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; huge BLP violation, not to mention 100% OR, and absolutely no evidence that this list is notable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability. Big Bang states topic very well. ///EuroCarGT 21:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. No sources, not even bad ones. Edward321 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A passing admin could SNOW this if they wished, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN, has nothing worth merging, and has a POV title unsuitable for a redirect. I foresee a snow close coming soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR which fails WP:LISTN and violates WP:BLP. -- 101.119.28.55 (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)— 101.119.28.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The ip 101.119.28.55 has only been used to vote, apart from two edits. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 05:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the editors other edits are outside this topic area. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Using deletion page to teach my students how new ideas are treated in establishment science. As wikipedia mirrors peer-review process exquisitely. Wavyinfinity (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If any of Wavyinfinity's "students" are reading this, I suggest that you try studying real science instead of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Our articles on Science and Pseudoscience are an excellent place to start. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, pseudoastronomy is a red link. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help you there. jps (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wavyinfinity is topic banned and can no longer respond to any comment here, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SNOW Aerospeed (Talk) 21:48, 13 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Jakobsen

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

Non-notable player in the 2nd division. Fails WP:ATHLETE. De728631 (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS. Fenix down (talk) 12:21, 11 February 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 Khaz'al al-Ka'bi. slakr^\ talk / 12:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shikh Khazal AL-Kabi

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

This is not an encyclopedic article. Only a huge list of names and it does not have a neutral point of view. A lot has to be done in order for this article to stay. Natuur12 (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A truly revolting article, but the individual it describes is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per PWilkinson below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Major-General of the Imperial persian army. Clearly notable. Will have to be extensively researched and referenced though beyond the two weblinks so far given. Should be possible via our British colleagues' information (User:David Underdown can you help at all?) Buckshot06 (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article isnot nominated because the person isnot notable but because the article is a mess. Another solution would be to turn this article into a stub with just the basic info. Natuur12 (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or very selective merge to Khaz'al al-Ka'bi. The subject certainly seems to be notable, but we have a far better (if slightly under-referenced) article on him already. The one thing that might be worth moving is the portrait, if its own deletion discussion establishes that we have the permissions needed to use it. Otherwise - unreferenced, looks as if it has been copied from somewhere (though possibly somewhere old enough to be out of copyright), does not seem to add anything useful to what we already have. PWilkinson (talk) 00:18, 12 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Vučeta

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

Fails WP:NBAND, apparently also an autobiography. As there is no band article to redirect to, I suggest we delete the page. De728631 (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Headmaster's Trophy

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

Topic is not notable, no apparent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Only reference is to a primary source. Cymru82 (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable subject -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: vanity page listing all the young people taking part in a non-notable internal school event. Only sources are from the school itself. PamD 18:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources provided are published by the school itself. No clear evidence of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:35, 16 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tau (theorem prover)

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

unavailable, unmaintained, non-notable (subject of one uncited paper) Ysangkok (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not being maintained is irrelevant, but otherwise I agree with the nomination. Clear case of WP:VANISPAM too if you look who wrote the article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:VANISPAM. Only one (uncited) paper mentions this tool. -- 101.119.28.55 (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, agreeing with above about WP:VANISPAM, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate 3D

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

Delete: Article fails WP:GNG and appears to be highly promotional. Article was also created by the person who created the game engine, a conflict of interest. BlitzGreg (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Current refs are all forums or sites related to the developer, and thus do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. A search revealed more forum posts and incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 02:45, 17 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Otto

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Unable to find anything substantial to use for citing article. m.o.p 12:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable...Modernist (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am finding only up-and-coming, aspiring type coverage. No evidence of attained notability; no reason to contradict the previous AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with AllyD's analysis. Finnegas (talk) 11:23, 18 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Scozzese

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

Fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:39, 1 February 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) 11:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of the awards are sufficiently notable to make him notable and there is no other claim to notability. SchreiberBike talk 21:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 13:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howard J. Van Till

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

Fails WP:PROF; I could not find any highly cited publications on Google Scholar. Instead, most results are books he has written or commentaries he has written in theology journals, none of which have many citations. I have added a source to the article, but as it is a local newspaper I am unsure if it is reliable, and I can't find many other reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me 20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pop-theologian with a GS h-index of 6. No cites in physics. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Ronald Numbers writes about him in Darwinism Comes to America - Page 12 (books.google.com/books?isbn=0674193121) 1998, Samuel J. Waldron wrote A Critique of Howard Van Till's The Fourth Day books.google.com/books?id=i7WOYgEACAAJ 1988 - ‎No preview and there are numerous other reviews and responses by other academics to his work. He's written several books and papers and has been somewhat influential, including writing sections of the Encyclopedia of science and religion, Volume 1 http://books.google.com/books?id=OFHuAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Howard+J.+Van+Till%22&dq=%22Howard+J.+Van+Till%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pi3fUtSpEZDesASFm4LYAg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCDgK. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Center for Inquiry, independent of Van Till (although they invited him to speak), "used a search engine for Professor Van Till and came up with an extraordinary number of hits, as he has been cited in, or been a contributor to, a vast number of publications as well as his own lectures and presentations; books and articles." [5] I have expanded the article somewhat, with citations from critical sources. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any evidence for this claim. What he has written is irrelevant. It's what others have written about him that is important and it's not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- I was doubtful at first, but he seems to be a significnat academic involved in religion and science debates. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I'd consider marginal notability as WP:AUTHOR, but reviews of his books are cited from self-published blogs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:51, 7 February 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) 11:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my previous view of Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xxanthippe, which claim can you "not see evidence for": my claim, or the claim stated on the Center for Inquiry website? – Fayenatic London 19:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User:Xxanthippe has not explained what he is sceptical about. Meanwhile, here is an article about Van Till's career in the Chicago Tribune. Like Peterkingiron, I stand by my "Keep" vote. – Fayenatic London 20:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Domain7

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

Not a notable company per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 31 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) 11:56, 9 February 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Migration inducting gene 7

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

This topic might be notable, but the easiest way to write one would be to throw this out and start again. Specific issues: tone; highly technical jargon; almost all sources are primary sources rather than secondary; all references need to be reformated; no wikilinks; no categories; no wikiprojects. A random sample of the many references revealed that most of them appear not to actually mention this gene. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw based on complete write of the article by @Sarahj2107:. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think any of the problems listed are reason to delete. The article clearly has issues, but I think they can be fixed. The topic is notable and I can find quite a few journal articles mentioning it which can be added as refs if they are not already in the article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have a suspicion this was copy-pasted from somewhere... whether that was someone's paper in Word or a journal I don't know... this is articles for deletion, not titles for deletion... bad articles can be userfied if the creator shows interest in improving them, or deleted. It's also quite unclear to me whether this topic itself is ever independently notable. There are thousands of genes/proteins/enzymes some of which warrant individual articles, most of which do not. While I could probably believe the topic itself is notable (due to its prominence as the subject of papers), I don't think this article adds much, or even provides a scaffolding for future editors to build on. Shadowjams (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable due to its association with cancer and its atypical translation. I also believe this article can be fixed without deleting and starting again; I haven't found any evidence of copyright violation that would require that. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"due to its association with cancer and its atypical translation" is not a reason for keep. As you'll see, I'm open to the idea the topic is notable due to some hints at its coverage; but merely describing some aspects of the article's subject is a non sequitur. The unlinked footnote references that make no sense, and the odd line breaking makes it 99% likely that it was copy pasted, it isn't clear from where though. Shadowjams (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A GScholar search for "Mig-7 gene" yields 218 hits, including secondary sources indicating its significance such as [6]. These multiple reliable sources in the form of peer-reviewed papers by groups independent of the discoverers show the gene and its associated protein to be a notable topic. As the nom notes, the article is in need of cleanup, such as wikification and reformatting. But the article is already readable and well-cited. Issues like these are surmountable problems, and per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, the article should be improved rather than deleted. Thanks go to Sarahj2107 for making a start on this. If some or all of the material is a copyvio, then it needs to go. But until that is shown, a notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:35, 31 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) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update It looks like Sarahj2107 has worked through the whole article, bringing it into Wikipedia format and removing potential OR and synth. As a much rewritten article, I'd say that concerns about formatting or copyright violations have been addressed and deletion through WP:TNT is no longer reasonable. Nice work, Sarah! --Mark viking (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY; the article has been significantly improved by User:Sarahj2107, and the topic is notable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been improved. Aliceswift1998 (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksa Nehrebets'kyi

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

Non-notable translator. No evidence of notability; of awards, or in depth coverage in independent sources. While English-language versions of many of the works have won awards and charted, there's not evidence that the translations have. Disclaimer: there are sources in the Ukrainian-language version of the article that are opaque to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 31 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) 11:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muckers (game)

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

Non notable commercial product. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 31 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) 11:54, 9 February 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) 01:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LPXTGase

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

Non-notable enzyme. This is an enzyme known only from the works of one academic; thus there cannot be any secondary sources to base an encyclopaedia article upon because it is lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because its know only from the work of one academic does not mean there can be no secondary sources. I have found 6 so far, all independent reliable sources (DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-1014.2012.00655.x, [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11]). I think that is enough to prove notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:26, 5 February 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) 11:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to this The Scientist article, the abstracts listed above in User:Sarahj2107's !vote demonstrate that this enzyme has been discussed in scientific journals. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 10 February 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) 02:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blaize Clement

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

~~Subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR. The article itself lacks reliable sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3. Her books have significant review coverage in trade magazines. For example Curiosity Killed the Cat Sitter is reviewed in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Booklist and Library Journal.[12] Duplicity Dogged the Dachshund reviewed in PW, Kirkus, Booklist.[13] Even Cat Sitters Get the Blues in PW and Kirkus.[14] Cat Sitter on a Hot Tin Roof in Kirkus, LJ, Booklist.[15] It goes on for her other books.. There are other reviews such as Anipal Times, Richmond Times-Dispatch. There are a couple obituaries: Herald-Tribune, Mystery Scene Magazine. Some additional GNG material: Sun-Sentinel -- GreenC 05:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 31 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) 11:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the links provided by User:Green Cardamom, the subject passes criteria #3 of WP:AUTHOR, with the subject's works having received "...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the other material found, I'll withdraw my nomination for deletion. This article needs serious work and hope this new material is added. Anyone is welcome to close this discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator has withdrawn the nomination. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:10, 10 February 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Dugmore

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

does not meet WP:GNG for performers/musicians, article created by someone with a possible COI and seems to be a vanity article. ColonelHenry (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Verifiable as a heavily-active musician, with a biography on Allmusic, albeit brief. In the Sunday Mail article referenced into the article, the subject is described as "probably the busiest session drummer in the UK. He has played on around 50 No1 hits". AllyD (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per AllyD. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 31 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) 11:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brattleboro Free Folk Festival

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

fails WP:GNG. could not find any indepth coverage. The 2nd source provided any mentions this festival in one line. LibStar (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I normally vote Delete if an article "needs work" and I don't plan on being the one to work on it, however, since this doesn't seem overly promotional I say we keep it based on the hope someone will better source it by adding info from this book - [[16]] - and this article on a pseudo-RS website maintained by a notable person who yet has had a WP article created for them, but is mentioned repeatedly in Metamodernism - [[17]]. I think those two items, when combined with the semi-robust mention in Pitchfork and the passing acknowledgment in Utne Reader would be sufficient to maintain a stub. BlueSalix (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 31 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) 11:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Points-of-parity/points-of-difference

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

Been around since 2006 , almost unchanged. No in-line refs and at present it is difficult to understand what it means or whether it has any significance. Maybe it can be merged somewhere if it can be understood. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fork of Point of difference. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 31 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) 11:52, 9 February 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} 11:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Panjab Chiefs

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

Non-notable book. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every hit I'm finding is just another site like Amazon or GoodReads, so we can be sure that this book isn't fake. Aside from that, there are no proofs of notability or any lasting impact of the book on literature related to the region. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 4 February 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) 11:51, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFM

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

I'd originally speedied this under WP:A7, but the original editor requested that I restore it and let it run through an AfD for a more thorough discussion, as they will also try to find more sourcing for the article as well. Offhand the article has some issues with notability, as the current sources are pretty much entirely primary. If by some chance this doesn't survive an AfD, moving this to the editor's userspace would probably be a good option as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Its incubator status indicates this article is possibly WP:TOOSOON, but I am not finding evidence of attained notability for this project. AllyD (talk) 19:15, 31 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) 11:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage, no source, no notability. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:19, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MercatorNet

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. NB Most contributors are WP:Single-purpose accounts. Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 5 February 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) 11:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant advert. 2 out of the 3 sources being its own website says something for complete lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 10 February 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, although additional participation here would have been more desirable for a stronger consensus to be determined. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subclub

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Účko (U.club), opened in March 1993, was a legendary club in Bratislava, it was rebuilt and renamed to SubClub in 2005, Marián Varga played at the opening party, according to SME. The same newspaper claims in antoher article that the club "has changed a generation". Many notable artists performed in the club and I would say it is notable. Other acceptable sources are for example [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – notability demonstrated above. Article needs improving, not deleting. C 679 06:35, 31 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) 11:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-Cup

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A 1978 attempt at a standardized sailboat design. No more than a few dozen were ever built. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 31 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) 11:50, 9 February 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Scholz

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

This is a procedural nomination based on the article's history. Two administrators (I and another) speedily deleted Mark Scholz, MD (now a redirect) based on WP:CSD#G11. The author, who is a WP:SPA and is also involved in Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers, Scholz's book, recreated it. Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and request for WP:SALTing of this entry due to issues identified by nom and readily apparent on a cursory review of the edit history for both these articles. BlueSalix (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. The fact that an article was deletable in the past is not a sufficient reason to delete an article and the nominator did not mention any reason to delete this article based on its current state. Regards So Why 18:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The book is apparently in 625 libraries, has also been published in French (as Touche pas à ma prostate) and has been reviewed in at least one professional journal. Publication: The Journal of Urology, v185 n5 (201105): 1995-1996, The author himself has published in major journals. A/c GScholar,, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014618 in New England J Med has been cited 970 times, tho he was one of many authors in a multicenter trial. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.1997.00234.x in British J Urology , where he's leading author, has been cited 194 tines. (next highest cited paper, 90 citations) . I agree the purpose of entering this article--and an article aboutthe book -- is likely to be promotional, but that doesnt mean the information itself is not appropriate or the person notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds better in French. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reject the notion that a book being shelved in 625 libraries makes it notable, in view of the fact the ALA reports there are 115,000 [[25]] libraries in the U.S. Further, library shelving should not be a guide to notability. Books written under grant are frequently mass mailed gratis to tens of thousands of libraries as a condition of the grantmaker. These unsolicited arrivals end up being sold in the annual disposal sale by the majority of libraries who receive them, but get shelved in at least a percentage where they often sit on the shelf for years gathering dust. BlueSalix (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. There is nothing in the notability guidelines about the popularity of a book. A book could exist in a single library and be notable, or be in every library and non-notable. However it is a good heuristic or rule of thumb when searching for book reviews (AUTHOR #3) - the more library holdings, the more likely book reviews exist. GreenC 06:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Book reviews and coverage. per AUTHOR #3: NY Times, Publishers Weekly, ABC News, ABC News, NPR. -- GreenC 06:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 31 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) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, the subject's work has received "... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Nice work by User:Green Cardamom finding the reviews. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Ende

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found about him, even not in german sources, that could make him notable. He is an orchestral musician that played for a notable band leader, doesn't makes himself notable. --Ben Ben (talk) 20:14, 2 February 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) 11:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Tulaev

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable scholar. Lacks reliable sources, previous AfD was somehow closed as no consensus in spite of the lack of good sources for notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His work is occasionally cited, through nothing I see suggests major notability due to high citation count. Would be nice to hear from a Russian-speaker regarding Russian sources. English sources do not support notability, I think. Although the article claims he authored seven books, that may be enough to make him notable, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - sources are being added slowly, but they are coming. Especially Russian ones. It is unfair to view validity on English sources alone. He is a well known author, the leader of the new right in Russia, etc. And he is cited by academics, in English yes, and many more in Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontifact (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 31 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) 11:46, 9 February 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. Verifiability concern is well-founded. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Heights, Indiana

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

Indianapolis Heights does not exist (that is, not in the location shown in the article). The only references are those cited in the infobox, and they do not support the claims. A Google search did find a small number of hits on "Indianapolis Heights", but most of them are for a subdivision on the west side of Indianapolis; none are for this location in Hamilton County. Indyguy (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Indyguy (talk) 14:37, 31 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) 11:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note that the article says that it was formerly called "Millersburg". Click on the coordinates and select ACME Mapper for the site, and you'll be taken to USGS topographical maps calling the settlement "Millersburg". Go to the GNIS database, and you can reach an entry for Millersburg in Hamilton County. Millersburg appears on page 784 of a 1915 history of Hamilton County. Millersburg was platted at some point; see the county government's documentation on a random parcel in the community. As far as I can tell, someone's made up a fake name for what's very definitely a real place with its own history and identity. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it's true that there is a Millersburg at that location, I can't find anything online that says the Millersburg area is now known as Indianapolis Heights. At the very least the name of the article would need to be renamed to something like Millersburg, Hamilton County, Indiana (there's already a town in northern Indiana named Millersburg, Indiana. Moreover, nothing in this article has a citation, and I suspect much of it is just made up. For instance, the History section states that it was settled in 1988 and named after Reggie Miller. However, Millersburg has been in existence since prior to 1915 according to the History of Hamilton County, Indiana: her people, industries and institutions, Volume 1 page 784. It's also shown on a 1960 map of Hamilton County, so it was neither founded in 1988 nor named after Reggie Miller. Indyguy (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An appropriate article can be written on this subject, but Indyguy makes a good point: we can't trust anything currently in this page. WP:TNT deletion and let's start over. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 15 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog (Software)

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

I think the references just are press releases, but considering the language problem, I may be wrong DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based one the coverage in English, this gets a weak delete from me. A single short article [26] in CIO Asia seems all there is in terms of independent coverage in English. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should try to figure out if the foreign-language (mostly Japanese) sources are unadulterated press releases, advertorials (e.g. barely edited press releases), or genuine independent coverage. The CNET Japan page seems to be an interview, so not terribly useful as coverage of the software, although in this case the company and the software seem to be pretty much one topic. There isn't much other coverage on CNET Japan of this company/product besides that interview though [27]. Based on what I can tell from the ZDNet page [28] that is more or less an advertisement/news piece, not really a product review. So independent RS coverage seems pretty thin, even in Japanese. It's possible for some software or web site to achieve widespread national notoriety but not be really noticed in English, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The amount and depth of coverage is pretty modest in Japanese too. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:07, 4 February 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) 11:45, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bb. Pilipinas-Tourism Titleholders

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

Article fails to establish notability WP:N and WP:GNG for the subject. Originally had no sources cited. Article was tagged for no sources, notability and PROD. PROD was subsequently seconded by another reviewing editor. Prod and maintenance tags were removed without comment. One source was added but when clicked the link returns a 404 Error (page not found). Ad Orientem (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 31 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) 11:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NoteTwo sources seem to have been added. Both fail WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really see absolutely no reason for keeping this. The sourcing fails really don't help its case. Mabalu (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santoro London

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

Not notable. Suspect awards are spurious and paid for by the "winners". Philafrenzy (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 31 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) 11:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothe

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

Not notable. Suspect a lot of this is puffery and spurious. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 31 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) 11:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Applied

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

Not notable and no assertion of notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added a couple of references relating to projects involving this firm (either under the above name or the earlier "Applied Information Group") but see nothing indicating more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 1 February 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) 11:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Committee (designer)

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to search for the two designers' names to find more coverage (as their brand name is hopelessly unimaginative). More coverage exists in specialized magazines (e.g. Metropolis) and books [29][30]. Not sure how notable that makes them. After more searching I'd say weak delete, because there isn't much more coverage and it's all about one expo/item. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:47, 4 February 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) 11:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walkers Bookshops

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

Not notable. Awards are very minor. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 31 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) 11:36, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Mangalore

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

Fails WP:GNG. There's a mention of a Bahrain Miss Mangalore in Gulf Daily News, but not much comes up for the India Miss Mangalore. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I thought about doing this myself after checking Wikipedia:Help_desk#Miss_Mangalore_-_Copy_right_volition. CaptRik (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 31 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) 11:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not convinced of notability. Mabalu (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable event....William 13:37, 14 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State Line Empire

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

Article is about a band that has not received the significant coverage needed to establish notability. There is some coverage as they won a contest to record with Slash. But that's a one time thing that does not appear to have been parlayed into notability. Whpq (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage I found [31][32][33][34][35] is very press release-y and/or mainly involves the contest. Not convinced an independent article is warranted at this time. Gong show 07:27, 1 February 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) 11:35, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dionna Marie Dal Monte

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

This is a biography of a living person, yet nothing in the article is verifiable. There are no reliable sources, and I can't find any. Basically, it is an unreferenced BLP and as such needs to be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of references is more a cause for a blp PROD tag, but subject does not seem to be notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a cese for a WP:BLP-PROD, because there are some references, albeit they are not reliable. BLP-PROD may be used only when there are no references of any kind. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is terrible. Yet she could be famosa. An "indiscreet" website (not obviously as stupid as its title suggests) has an article about her (with a biography), calling her La famosa cantante newyorchese Dionna Marie. She could be big in Italy: Nell'agosto del 2012 Dionna sceglie uno dei migliori studio europei, i Massive Art Studio di Milano, per incidere quello che sara' ricordato come l'album rivelazione del 2012, says the article. -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dionna Marie Dal Monte is the daughter of one of the most famous American Pornstar, Screenwriter and Actor (Victor Colicchio). She recorded a cd with a Ramone (With Marky Ramone), a song with David Peel (The Pope Smokes Dope), a song with Death SS. U should stop to delete her page for political reasons. I will report you to the attention of the world press if you go on this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepevalentine (talk • contribs) 21:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't mind some attention of the world press. I like attention. By the way, notability is not inherited per WP:NOTINHERITED. Being a daughter of a famous person, and working with famous persons do not make one notable. Reliable independent sources are needed to establish notability. Vanjagenije (talk)

Hello Pepe. I note that

you are the creator of the article;
the page at lindiscreto.it to which I linked above says: Il padre, Victor Colicchio, ex pornostar di fama mondiale con lo pseudonimo PEpe Valentine, e' famoso attore e sceneggiatore: ha scritto tra gli altri il film di Spike Lee Summer of Sam, ispirato alla sua vita reale, e diversi episodi della serie televisiva LAW AND ORDER, in cui e' anche attore.

I therefore have a question for you: Are you Pepe Valentine?

If you are Pepe Valentine, then you have a conflict of interest which you should declare. Or anyway, make it clear that you are her father.
If you are not Pepe Valentine, then your username "Pepevalentine" infringes Wikipedia's username policy.

I'm sure I'm not alone in looking forward to your speedy reply here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am not Pepe Valentine I used the porn name of her father. HEre you are some articles that explains ou why Dionna Dal Monte should be in wikipedia. 1) She recorded a cd with her songs with Marky Ramone as a drummer, in the only cd from Adios Amigos where Marky plays original songs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXDECwbi66I in the video Marky Ramone says: Dionna's songs are memorables and will be for years and years from now). 2) She also recorded a single with John Lennon Guru's DAVID PEEL, she is the only artist that David Peel allowed to remake a version of his songs, in this case the 1972 john lennon's producer THE POPE SMOKES DOPE, where Dionna duets with David Peel, and 3) a single with the band DEATH SS (Hangin on the devil's wall). Here with Marky Ramone: https://itunes.apple.com/it/album/with-marky-ramone-single/id585327599 here with David Peel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ThVzPQBilg 4) You are deleting Dionna's page because you think she is famous only for being white power (she is not, as she told to GQ she has a swastica tatooed on her breast only because she likes the symbol: http://www.gqitalia.it/show/musica/2013/ottobre/dionna-del-monte-il-tatuaggio-con-la-svastica-una-questione-estetica 5) I don't know why you report an article of a small webmagazine like l'indiscreto (I am an Italian fan of Dionna) when magazines as ROLLING STONE, GQ, MAXIM published articles about Dionna Dal Monte (RS: http://www.rollingstonemagazine.it/musica/news-musica/avenue-x-tre-generazioni-punk-riunite/46750/ GQ http://www.gqitalia.it/show/musica/2011/12/marky-ramone-torna-a-suonare-con-lo-skypunker-italiano-e-l-ex-attrice-dei-sopranos). She is wife of a very famous skydiver: Skypunker (www.skypunker.com) that has a program on Italian MTV and is always on Maxim, Playboy, GQ, Max etc. There is also a lot of interest about her collaboration with David Peel: http://sentireascoltare.com/news/the-pope-smokes-dope-rivisitata-la-collaborazione-tra-john-lennon-e-david-peel/ ... 6) Dionna is known by all the hollywood stars and she appeared in 4 movies. I don't understand the reason why she cannot be in wikipedia: isn't wikipedia an Encyclopedia? Here we see a person that people know, that recorded songs with rockstars, that's becoming famous worldwide, that has articles on GQ, Rolling Stone, Maxim.... So, I see people very not important are on wiki. Why Dionna not??? 7) She has been also on Italian Rock TV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfwTzuJ9c8Q on NYC based Steve Stanulis Show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1it4OoV5aI and in rockin america http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUvkvc9loGw, not counting 8) that her song YOU MEAN EVERYTHING TO ME is in every Alitalia airflight, is played on Italian Virgin Radio, and 9) the song TONIGHT is in the compilation REVOLVER of VIRGIN RADIO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUvkvc9loGw on Disc 2 track 18, together with Sex Pistols, Stranglers, Iggy Pop... not mentioning that she played twice at the world famous Italian rockabilly festival Summer Jamboree in front of 40.000 people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepevalentine (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS She is also in IMDB, as I linked. acting in 4 movies, including Spike Lee's masterpiece Summer of Sam. If you google her name, you will find a lot of informations about her. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0171468/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepevalentine (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 February 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) 11:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated discovery: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dionna Dal Monte. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation of content deleted per a deletion discussion, as indicated by Hoary. As a second choice, regular delete because nothing here indicates that the subject is notable as an actress -- her IMDb entry indicates that she has never even played a character with a personal name (her biggest role seems to be as "Girl at Block Party") -- nor as a musician per WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she just seems to be mentioned here and there. So delete. But since this second AfD has already started, let it run its dreary course. And then the two article titles can be salted in order to prevent more timewasting in the future. If D(M)DM becomes much written about in the future, an article can still be written if it's done in the right way. -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CIAT group

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

No claim to any notability, fails WP:CORP. Moreover, pure advertisement and if all marketing is removed, nothing remains. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 31 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) 11:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Revolution

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

"Online Revolution" was a one-off PR event organised by Lazada and sister companies in the Rocket Internet portfolio. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 31 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) 11:28, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N. Anthony (Tony) Coles

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

Not notable, though the company probably is. His avoids are extremely minor, and the references are the expected press releases (or articles about the company , & in one case, an article in WP)

From AfC, accepted despite using a WP article as reference DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like the subject might warrant a small section in the company's article, but not a standalone article itself. Paviliolive (talk) 22:22, 31 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) 11:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TGT Oil and Gas Services

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

Press release for a small energy services company. Lists all the execs,lists all the (routine) services), but nothing to show any notability DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:29, 31 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) 11:26, 9 February 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. borderline WP:G11, too slakr^\ talk / 13:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Party of California

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

This appears to be WP:SPAM masquerading as an article about a state wide branch of an insignificant political party. No sources WP:RS are cited. Article fails to establish notability WP:N per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Article was previously tagged for no references, advert and notability. It was also tagged PROD. Article's creator, an apparent WP:SPA, removed PROD and all maintenance tags without explanation. AFAIK political parties do not enjoy presumptive notability. Am I missing something here? Ad Orientem (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Compare it to Libertarian Party of California, in the same category. There's a list of names in the Libertarian one, but not a platform list like in this Justice one. Both parties have a webpage and a street address. The Libertarian's website seems deeper, includes minutes of quarterly meetings of the board over several years at various locations around the state. This Justice Party seems new: for people in the "About" section it gives an acting chairman and the national party main person and then calls for volunteers and board members without listing any. So I would guess that there could be more substantive coverage available about the Libertarian one than for this one. But the Libertarian one doesn't have any more substantial coverage in its article. --do ncr am 19:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a look at the Libertarian Party of California and it's a mess. I am surprised that one got by without anyone so much as blinking for as long as it has. There might be enough there to salavage and merge into the article on the national party though, which is indisputably notable. But all of that is WP:OTHERSTUFF. This one is just bald faced advertising for an insignificant branch of an insignificant minor party. It needs to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 8 February 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) 11:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively, with some tagging to call for development and sources. Compare also to Constitution Party of California, which has almost no California-specific information, indeed is almost identical to Constitution Party of Alaska, Constitution Party of Alabama, etc. I see that editor Ad Orientum has tagged and initiated a merger for the Libertarian Party of California page, but it seems that there are other mass-produced state party pages which perhaps should be addressed, and it seems unfair to focus upon just the Justice Party of California one. There is in fact some info -- name of acting state chairman -- for this one, the article could be developed. Perhaps an RFC about all of them? --do ncr am 13:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree This seems to be an OTHERSTUFF argument. The inferiority of other articles is not an argument for keeping this one. There is nothing remotely notable here and there are no sources. If we are going to start down the road you are proposing, we may as well just chuck WP:N altogether. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, i think you and I are not as far apart as you assume. I see you opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama about Alabama and the many other state articles of the Constitution Party. I had suggested an RFC, you choose to do it by a multiple-article AFD, that is pretty much the same -- you don't seem to "strongly disagree" with me about having a review of the state party pages. I tend to think an RFC would have been better, less confrontational, less selective/targeting, more educational to the involved editors and tending towards better development of wikipedia, but you have opened it as an AFD, and I'll comment there sometime later.

About your "strongly disagreeing" with my Keep vote here, that is where i stand. I am not sure that just because you can apply a label, wp:OTHERSTUFF, that my argument is wrong. Generically pointing to other sucky articles in Wikipedia that are unrelated is subject to OTHERSTUFF-based dismissal. But I didn't point to generic other articles, I pointed to the finite group of U.S. state party articles, which could be reviewed and considered. It does seem random and unfair to address just one, and, though you may disagree, I think it is fair to argue Keep for one randomly selected, conditional upon there being some RFC or other review of the group of articles. Which could lead to some good discussion, education of interested editors in what is a reasonable notability standard for state party articles. Your starting a multiple-article AFD about the Constitution party ones only is not quite as good as a cooperative RFC discussion about what the standard should be. So anyhow, I don't think i was using a "bad" OTHERSTUFF argument; I think I was making a legitimate, positive, OTHERSTUFF-related argument. Perhaps the OTHERSTUFF essay ought to be refined to make some distinctions. I have read it before but have not studied it just now.

respectfully, --do ncr am 20:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, if I had known what a pain in the @$$ the bundled AfD was going to be, I would have gone to RfC first. From what I gather the things never quite load properly. In any event someone seems to have fixed it so it is now in the AfD queue. But FWIW I did tag it RfC last night. So hopefully we will get some input. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About

Delete Put simply, there is no notability in the state branch of a minor party. There's nothing to talk about but the platform, and that's in the main article about the party. I'd never suggest deleting a main article of even the smallest real party--that's one place we should be inclusive. But the single article is enough. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Doncram Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:14, 12 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Declercq

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

Fails WP:BIO, no assertion of notability of this provincial level government agency administrator. It appears to be part of a web of family history articles that do not seem to be encyclopedic. EricSerge (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see grounds for notability. ONE/Kind en Gezin is probably a notable organization by our standards, but being provincial president of it doesn't confer notability. Article doesn't indicate sources to meet WP:GNG and Google/GBooks search doesn't reveal anything. Wikipedia only holds articles about people who meet notability standards (see WP:BIO), and even if someone has led an interesting or worthwhile life, they may not qualify for a Wikipedia article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (by the creator of this page) : What may be important to consider, though it was not explicitly mentioned in the article as I feared it would trigger a different level of discussion, is that one should not forget that she was born and became a teacher at a college (it is now part of the association of the Catholic University of Leuven) during times before the emancipation of women in our society. During her days she has achieved noteworthy accomplishments and I feel like it would be incorrect to judge her accomplishments through modern eyes of the year 2014. What she has done and who she has become at that time is absolutely remarkable. Because I had originally started this article I do not want to vote nor interfere (so you can ignore my vote), but just want to share these thoughts and facts with you. We should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the article I have now made a remark concerning emancipation and have added categories reflecting the organization she chaired that was established to defend human and children's rights.Gaverke14 —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have to judge not only if she was unusual, but how unusual and significant. If she was considered a real pioneer by many people, then her actions would probably be reported in reliable sources, as the actions of many other pioneering women have been. Women's studies is a major academic subject these days with many scholarly articles and books published about women's achievements in many different fields. Wikipedia's general rules for notability means that we only write about people whom other people (academics, published authors, journalists, etc) consider to be notable, and without published sources saying that her achievements were significant, I don't think we can have an article on her even if she was an interesting and unusual person. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGREED. (posted by the author of the article) Please kindly delete the article. It is certainly so that she has been cited as a person and for her activities and position in the printed literature, but I do not have such references apart from the one cited in the current version of the article. Therefore I suggest you delete the article and allow others to find such references in the future and possibly post the article again with inclusion of good references. Gaverke14 —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 4 February 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) 19:17, 31 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) 11:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may it help : I have included 4 refs in which the early history of the school for nurses is described, including the importance of prof Judith Declercq and the other pioneers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.127.44 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saumya Daan

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

Article was previously deleted as a PROD and then restored upon request. It's an unsourced BLP though, so I think it should be sourced or deleted. I tried to find sources, but I didn't have much luck since I'm not very familiar with Indian media. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX or WP:AUTOBIO :-ChanderFor You 06:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is not a hoax and there was no reason to assume bad faith on the editor who had given the reference also in the article but it simply wasn't linked to a url. (which btw was very easy to find.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if it is not a hoax. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:25, 26 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) 19:17, 31 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) 11:24, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Stanaway

AfDs for this article:

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

weekend sport journalist for a new program--no independent references that aren't pure PR/ Accepted from AfC regardless. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Paviliolive (talk) 22:14, 31 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) 11:21, 9 February 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 Marcus Hook Range Rear Light. Renames are more a discussion for the target talk page. slakr^\ talk / 13:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Hook Range Front Light

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

This "lighthouse" is not described at any length in any of the sources we have normally used, and all evidence shows it to be a minor automated light whose description exceeds what's in the light list only in giving a date of construction. As a rule we have not considered these to be notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides the coverage by the book already listed in the article, a United States Department of Commerce publication gives more substantial coverage as does the book Delaware Lighthouses and Range Lights. [36][37] --Oakshade (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference you supply gives marginally more information but the USLHS and USCG light lists, annual reports, and Notice to Mariners are routine coverage which mention every AtoN in the country. They cannot be considered to confer notability. Mangoe (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE applies to WP:News Events which of course this is not. Even if it did, WP:ROUTINE states examples such as "wedding announcements" and "sports scores" which this coverage is nothing of a sort. In fact WP:GNG, which does apply here, in its definition of "sources" clearly states "reports by government agencies" as an acceptable source. --Oakshade (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking English, not Wikipedia keywords. You can find this level documentation for any aid to navigation constructed long enough ago, because for instance light lists in the early 1900s included all this information. Yet every post and lantern would not be held notable by a reasonable person. The light lists do not establish notability. Period. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The report by the USCG is not a "list," it's a report. Period. Mangoe, if you'd like to change WP:GNG to not allow coverage by government reports to establish notability, you need to make your case on the WP:GNG talk page, not push a new agenda in a single AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They do not establish notability because those concerned with lighthouses do not take them so. It is possible to find "reports" from the 1800s which talk in minute detail about every minute change to every light and post in the nation, and the American Local Notice to Mariners continues on in the same vein. I could, if sufficiently possessed of the urge, write a history of every navigational aid in the country using the federal sources. But people don't care.

When it comes down to it, then, you are the one who is pushing a new theory of notability. We have tended not to write articles on unmanned automated lights, because as a rule these are not what people think of when they think of "lighthouses". The division is not absolute and in a few cases articles have been written on these, and this may well end up being one of those cases. But you are the one who is trying to establish a precedent of "all American aids to navigation are notable, because they all appear in official reports." One could argue that this light is notable due to its coverage in the book of photographs; I have tended to avoid using those in lighthouse articles because their accuracy tends to be sketchy, but I'm not utterly adverse to them as a source of notability. The use of the routine LHS and CG lists and reports, however, will not do. They are relentlessly comprehensive, and nobody is going to support writing the hundred thousand articles which that standard would demand. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobody" is a big term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Marcus Hook Range Rear Light and re-direct to Marcus Hook Range Lights. This is how the US National Park Service web site combines the two navigational aids. Blue Riband► 02:48, 29 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) 20:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename per Blue Riband. Together there is enough for an article based both on notability and on Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer. Having the two with seperate articles, though, is just silly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the wikipedia topic, but perhaps develop the topic and then redirect to a new merged and renamed topic. This should have been discussed at a Talk page, not AFD'd. It seems obvious to me there should be at least a redirect from this topic title, deleting was never appropriate. There's information in a document linked from one of the articles, that the two range lights together provided means for a river pilot to navigate downstream through a channel by keeping the rear and front lights aligned vertically. It doesn't make a lot of sense to discuss them separately without referencing the other. Neither article currently describes their relationship. --do ncr am 19:42, 8 February 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) 11:21, 9 February 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Strozzi-Heckler

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

No evidence subject meets WP:BIO; prod was disputed by author. Other than a short WSF article from 2000, sources appear to only verify that he has found work as a public speaker and coach; none of them support notability claim. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the author of this article. The Wall Street Journal article linked in the WP article specifically describes Strozzi-Heckler's work in creating practices to apply somatic psychology principles for real word applications (in this case with the U.S Marine Corps) using elements of Aikido and meditation. This is the essence of what the WP article describes him as being noteworthy for. The rest of the cited sources support this, many of them are books from established publishers available for preview through Google Books. He has written nine books on the subject, which have been translated into several languages (some of which have been cited as reliable sources in Wikipedia articles like the featured one on Aikido). The majority of Google Scholar and Books references (discounting books and papers that Strozzi-Heckler has authored or co-authored) linked from top of this page refer to him as a teacher/educator, author, leadership coach, or psychologist. SympatheticResonance (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a better case could be made for keeping the article if Strozzi Institute was merged into it. The latter uses pretty much the same references and as it stands makes less of a case for notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify this please, Peter? Out of the Strozzi Institute's 14 references and the Richard Strozzi-Heckler's 10 references, I only see one that is shared - a 2007 article from Strategy+Business magazine. SympatheticResonance (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Including books and further reading - basically the Strozzi Institute is a creation of Richard and Richard if he is notable owes that to the creation of the Strozzi institute.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:37, 3 February 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) 11:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WSJ piece is pretty strong and it's supported by other sources as outlined by SympatheticResonance. I don't see a compelling case for merger since the institution he founded and the person are separate things, source wise, and sources are how notability is determined. -- GreenC 16:41, 15 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual analytics

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

Significance of subject not properly established. The only reference in the article fails to mention "contextual analytics". Article not written in a tone that is easily understood. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 1 February 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) 11:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After looking at a few uses of "Contextual analytics" it is clear that different people are using the words in different ways. There is no clear definition, except that it is some form of data mining or perhaps the use of the results of data mining. Perhaps redirect to Datamining? But maybe that isn't a good idea, we'd have to include something like "contextual analytics has unclear meanings" in Datamining. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:22, 17 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tavex

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article with no claim of notability, created by a WP:SPA with an acknowledged conflict of interest, and sourced only to the firm's own website. The equivalant page created 3 days later on the Finnish Wikipedia is no better. No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 24 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, Mkdw ^talk 23:30, 31 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) 11:19, 9 February 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 DVDVideoSoft. slakr^\ talk / 13:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free YouTube to MP3 Converter

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

A non-notable piece of software, the page is being use for advertiesment. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 09:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to DVDVideoSoft. Not notable based on WP:NSOFTWARE standards. I found two Russian books that had only trivial coverage. Some of the cited sources (e.g. pc-magazin.de) do seem to be curated download collections that include a short review, but taken on the whole they still do not establish notability in my opinion. The company may not be notable either, but since the article exists, this article's contents should be moved there rather than deleted. I would consider nominating Free Audio Converter, Free Video Call Recorder for Skype, Free YouTube Download, Free Video Dub, Free AVI Video Converter, and Free Studio (seems a bit more notable) for deletion as well. ––Agyle (talk) 03:55, 26 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, Mkdw ^talk 23:18, 31 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) 11:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DVDVideoSoft per Agyle, the refs are primarily brief reviews/download sites, and not sufficient to establish notability independent of the parent company. Article is short enough that a merge would not be a problem.Dialectric (talk) 15:18, 16 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magda Stoczkiewicz

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

The article does not make it clear how this person passes WP:BIO. Neither the listed, nor other sources I can google suggest any major coverage. She is real, and her name appears in passing on a number of statements and such, but she does not appear to have received any significant coverage herself (failing WP:GNG) nor does she appear to have anything that would make her pass WP:BIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person fails WP:GNG. FirstDrop87 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 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, Mkdw ^talk 23:25, 31 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) 11:18, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Torchia

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY; seems to be promotion by WP:Single-purpose account Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons self-evident BlueSalix (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 24 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, Mkdw ^talk 23:28, 31 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) 11:18, 9 February 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 The Demon Headmaster (TV series). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Szekeres

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Has had a number of promising credits, including Branagh's Hamlet and three years as a regular on The Demon Headmaster but I could find no evidence of awards or of press about him. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 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, Mkdw ^talk 23:31, 31 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) 11:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Demon Headmaster (TV series). Former child actor who has not acted as an adult and appears to fail WP:GNG (although there may be some coverage about him in 1990s print) and narrowly fails WP:NACTOR. The role in The Demon Headmaster (TV series) is significant, but most roles were far smaller, even the one in Hamlet (young Hamlet isn't in the play so I don't quite know what he does in the film, but based on reviews it's nothing major), and the same probably applies to the part in the Charles and Diana biopic, where he was at the start of his career and about 8 years old. (General policy in recent AfDs seems to be to delete child actors who weren't successful as adults and didn't attract significant press, but I'm not primarily basing this argument on that precedent without any links/references.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:56, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonmineral

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

Nominating per proposals at the article's talk page by two only editor who has contributed there. In 2007, Zimbres wrote: "(sic) "A Nonmineral (Mineralogy) is a substance found in a natural environment that does not satisfy the definition of a Mineral and is not even a Mineraloid. Many nonminerals are mined and have industrial or other uses similar to minerals, such as jewelry"

What is this? There is no scientific sense in this definition! There is no significance in the term "nonmineral"!

Things that are found in a natural environment and doesn't satisfy the definition of a Mineral and is not even a Mineraloid: Air, birds, trees, mankind, light, waves, soil, worms, are nonminerals? Is this correct? Perhaps God would be a nonmineral too!

I propose the deletion of this page."

In January this year Akburnham wrote: "I also agree that this page should be deleted. It is fundamentally inconsistent with another wikipedia page--that of mineraloids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineraloid). That page gives the following list of mineraloids:

Amber, non-crystalline structure, organic Jet, non-crystalline nature, organic (very compact coal) Native mercury, liquid (IMA/CNMNC valid mineral name) Lechatelierite, nearly pure silica glass Limonite, a mixture of oxides Lapis Lazuli, a mixture of minerals Obsidian, volcanic glass - non-crystalline structure, a glass and quartz mixture Opal, non-crystalline silicon dioxide, a mix of minerals (IMA/CNMNC valid mineral name) Pearl, organically produced carbonate Petroleum, liquid, organic Pyrobitumen, amorphous fossilized petroleum (noncrystalline, organic) Ebonite, vulcanized natural or synthetic rubber (organic); not a mineral due lack of crystalline structure Tektites, meteoritic silica glass

But the "Nonmineral" page lists the following materials as not qualifying as mineraloids, even though they are listed as "Mineraloids" in the page above. Amber, organic, non-crystal structure. Mercury, a liquid at normal temperatures, but often classified as a mineral [1] [2]. Obsidian, usually not considered a mineral due to non-crystal structure. Petroleum, organic and liquid. Pyrobitumen, an organic, nonhomogeneous, non-crystal structure.

It is possible that words can have multiple meanings, but if so, a Wikipedia article should reflect that multiplicity. But to have different pages with conflicting definitions is unacceptable.

As a nominator I fully support arguments provided by these editors. This article is unsourced, confusing and contradicting to other (sourced) articles. Also WP:OR may be the issue. Beagel (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unreferenced and incorrect WP:OR. -- 101.119.28.31 (talk) 11:46, 26 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, Mkdw ^talk 23:38, 31 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) 11:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't claim much expertise on this topic area, but this is unsourced and it doesn't look it can be sourced by the few editors who have tried, so WP:CHALLENGE applies to the whole page at this point. Based on my searches, it seems nonmineral is an arbitrary substance defined as such by some law (e.g. sand and gravel were declared nonmineral in a US law [38]) rather than some generally accepted scientific terminology. I'm not sure that would get us much beyond a WP:DICTDEF, but in any case, this page would need to be completely rewritten if that use of "nonmineral" is the common one. Another book seems to give an economics-based definition, where "nonmineral" seems to be anything from solar energy to timber and fisheries [39]! Yet a third book defines nonmineral as precisely C, H, N, and O in the field of nutrition [40]. So perhaps this needs to be some kind of WP:CONCEPTDAB, but WP:TNT applies at this point to the present content. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As the original author of this article, I suggest that its contents be merged with the Mineraloid article. Many amendments have been made by other editors over the years, suggesting it has some value, and almost all substances are linked to other wikipeida articles, thus eroding the claim of non-referencing. At the time there seemed to be a need to distinguish some substances that might erroneously be accepted as minerals from actual minerals. Perhaps, if this merge is done correctly, the need for this article is greatly diminished. Thanks, User:Stepp-Wulf

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 West Bloomfield School District. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheiko Elementary

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

Elementary (primary) school of no notability. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google Books search under the school's former name yields several hits. I have not evaluated them for depth of coverage, but this was a Blue Ribbon school. If the school is not notable, the school district, West Bloomfield School District, is an obvious merge target. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 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, Mkdw ^talk 23:38, 31 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) 11:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By OP How about if I just WP:BLAR it to the school district? – S. Rich (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Bloomfield School District per usual practice for nonnotable primary schools. Deor (talk) 20:51, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Wells

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the general notability guidelines. The article has a history of BLP violations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more or less per nom. A BLP with no independent reliable sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:46, 5 February 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) 11:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with views expressed above. Finnegas (talk) 13:01, 14 February 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Slop

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

Despite the Guardian article, I am not convinced that this character has notability to justify an article outside of The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. The last sentence, the one that cites the Guardian, could reasonably be merged into the main article, and the rest of this discarded. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. From what I can see, Wikipedia needs more content about this extremely important and influential book, not less. Looking at our current article on The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, I am surprised to see that there is little in the way of plot summary (admittedly not the easiest thing to do, given the nature of the book) and no sourced list of characters (how can it be, for example, that we do not have critical material about Uncle Toby?). If such a list did exist I might not object to merging the Dr. Slop material there, but until it does I see no benefit is deleting what we do have. Plenty of sources are out there to develop this article in the meantime (try this one, for example [41]) --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is borderline. I give it the benefit of the doubt. The fact of the matter is that some reputable sources both mention him and focus on him. Other sources include http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1913.tb12242.x/abstract and The Novelist's Magazine, Volume 5. Folgertat (talk) 14:56, 7 February 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) 10:38, 9 February 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 product-service system. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Servicizing

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

no evidence that the term is in standard use, and I wouldn't know what its equivalent would be in English. The references seem to discuss a variety of related concepts. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Reasonably used neologism. Used by respected sources such as The Oxford Handbook of Business and the Natural Environment; you may google yourself. The concept is long well known in software industry, "software as a service". Makes sense to have a generic term. - Altenmann >t 16:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. No evidence at all that this is used. --Zackmann08 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grr. This is actually a notable concept and the term is proper [42][43] although it has (of course) some rough synonyms [44]. It simply means transforming a product into a service (as much as possible). But the Wikipedia article a total nightmare of impenetrable writing. I'll slap it with {{rewrite}}. Frankly it could be deleted per WP:TNT. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also this wiki article theorizes almost without end but gives only one (unreferenced!) example, whereas most quality sources covering this topic are rich in examples and don't drivel anywhere near as much. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under one of the alternative names, there are even an entire books about the topic. [45][46] (though they are a collection of papers). Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And we have a WP:CFORK article that is almost just as badly written at product-service system (PSS). Apparently most biz school guys writing stuff on Wikipedia can't keep it real. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It does seem that some authors consider servicizing a somewhat narrower concept than PSS (or just one of several ways of pursuing that) [47]. The PSS article (of course) engages in the typical theorizing with zero examples, not even examples at the level of related concepts, when that's the 1st thing I found in a google search... Another book/paper however points out that most authors mean the same thing by PSS and servicizing [48]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another (2011) book/paper concurs [49] that "The literature in the field of PSS has, until now, been focused largely on the actual transition from product to product/service-system", although that author refers to "servicizing" only as one of the early contributions (1999) to the framing/study of the PSS field [50]. He does go on to say the field is still in its infancy, so definitions & theories are still "fluid". Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Service economy also covers this a bit with the 2nd meaning given in its lead ("servitization of products"), although the topic is apparently not further discussed in there. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

"Software as a service" does not seem to be the same thing exactly, nor "service economy. " Is the general concept replacing objects with services? but in business contexts only?

Can someone find a well written quotable definition to start off with that does not use business or sociology jargon?

Some of the examples in the article do not make sense in terms of anything that might be this concept: using natural pesticides instead of synthetic, for example. The actual difference would be between buying pesticides, or hiring people who apply their own. Some don't make sense at all: property-acquisition/disposal costs can be outweighed by transaction costs of renting--somebody has to buy the property in order to rent it to you, and whoever does this is going to need to make a profit by it, & the end-user is going to pay the extra.

One of the examples is designing things to minimize the need for servicing, which is a different concept altogether.

Another separate concept is cost-based pricing, which is again a distinct subject, which can be understood without jargon.

Perhaps when it comes down to it, it is fundamentally the Marxist Labour theory of value.

My first problem remains: is this in general use, instead of use by a small circle? We should include jargon that is in common use, and explain it as best we can , even if the originators are totally unclear about it themselves; but we do not promote jargon that is not in general use by including it as separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGREED! Well said DGG! --Zackmann08 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best course of action is to wp:smerge this page into product-service system (PSS). At least PSS can be said to be a somewhat notable academic field of study, given that there are several books/conferences titled that way (even if one can't give a universally agreed definition as to what it entails). The various flavors of PSS (whether they are only theoretical flavors or there is a more real-world distinction between them--sources cited above vary on that aspect) are best treated on a single page, I think. (I've done something like that with the somewhat similar issue of metamessage and subtext recently, though I had the advantage that metamessage wasn't really covered anywhere yet.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In practical terms, I think we could start with a WP:BLAR, but keeping the history intact. Most of the content isn't useful for immediate merging because of the highly idiosyncratic writing style (very wordy but still vague and peppered with jargon that doesn't actually illuminate: for example under "incentives" we have "The shift from products to servicizing solutions may create incentives for producers to: [...] Facilitate the development of supporting infrastructure, which often needs to be changed and/or optimised, including ICT software solutions and hardware solutions and systems;" -- doesn't really say anything), but at least it's useful for an outline of main issues to cover. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:22, 3 February 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) 10:37, 9 February 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalu Yala

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

not yet notable--it's essentially PR. When it does get built, that might be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 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) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that only the internship program exists at the moment and they're heavily promoting it. Gm545 (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: I closed this as "delete" but am relisting it after an editor submitted what appear to be relevant sources on my talk page. Sandstein 09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Whether built or not, the article satisfies WP:GNG. - Altenmann >t 17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep - but needs updating with most recent articles- The Next Web: http://thenextweb.com/la/2014/01/28/heart-panamanian-jungle-startup-village-grows/ CNN en Espanol- http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/spanish/2014/01/11/cnnee-aventurero-reportero-ted-adventure.cnn&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fkaluyalainternships.com%2F Fusion: http://fusion.net/american_dream/story/young-people-building-worlds-sustainable-community-panama-324448 Mission.tv: http://mission.tv/features/kalu-yala-a-sustainable-jungle-settlement-for-entrepreneurs.html Atlanta Business Chronicle: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0yclteq0wdwlcdf/Atlanta%20Business%20Chronicle%20Kalu%20Yala%20Article.pdf ULoop: http://osu.uloop.com/news/view.php/104693/a-few-months-in-panama-an-overview-of-the-kalu-yala-entrepreneurial-internship-program Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amanda-slavin/the-world-of-kalu-yala_b_1415934.html Under30Ceo: http://under30ceo.com/town-2-0-leader-2-0-lessons-entrepreneurship-jimmy-stice/ FSView: http://www.fsunews.com/article/20130328/FSVIEW0101/130327037/Student-works-sustain-agriculture-Panama Cavalier Daily: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2013/09/a-summer-off-the-grid UGAzine: http://georgiaugazine.com/changing-the-world-with-kalu-yala-2/ The Collegian: http://thecollegianur.com/2013/09/22/summer-aboad-in-the-kalu-yala-valley/36843/ Tiger News: http://thetigernews.com/news.php?aid=8761&sid=1 The Silhouette: http://www.thesil.ca/insideout-embracing-both-fear-and-failure-at-kalu-yala?fb_action_ids=10153332829755370&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210153332829755370%22%3A310183902455569%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210153332829755370%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map The Daily Reveille: http://www.lsureveille.com/news/student-learns-about-sustainability-in-panama-jungle/article_11fcff3c-36c2-11e3-9519-001a4bcf6878.html The State Press: http://www.statepress.com/2013/09/11/student-internship-at-sustainable-community-provides-wealth-of-opportunity/184.77.48.222 (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG, per:

Also, the topic has received a lot of coverage in student newspapers. Additional examples include:

Additionally, there's this article, but I'm unsure about the source's reliability:

Mashable

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Ordinarily, only two relistings are performed, but in light of new sources, relisting again.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonskyn Hoekie

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

No proof of notability, a visit from a BBC correspondent is not enough to warrant a separate article about this squatter camp. The Le Monde article used as a second source is just a translation of the original BBC report. eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 1 February 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) 10:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added a little extra text around the controversy, with a couple of extra sources which are explicitly about Sonskyn Hoekie. bobrayner (talk) 15:14, 9 February 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 People Power Revolution. slakr^\ talk / 13:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration of Corazon Aquino

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

Unsure why a particular event in this person's life should warrant a separate article. Also it's badly formatted and has no references. Gaba ^(talk) 15:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced trivial. - Altenmann >t 17:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notice Actually there is a whole template full of philippine unaugurations of the same quality: Template:Philippine presidential inaugurations. Does anybody know how to AfD all of them? - Altenmann >t 17:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't want to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but we usually have articles on the inaugurations of U.S. presidents. Is there a relevant notability guideline for such events? Still, I'm leaning towards keep since I know there is some coverage (albeit not necessarily online) of her inauguration and its significance, although I'm withholding !voting until my question about the relevant guideline is answered. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corazon Aquino, not a similar historical notable case with First inauguration of Barack Obama, Inauguration of John F. Kennedy and First inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno about those first two, which were fairly routine (an inauguration after an election, how boring), this was more similar to LBJ's inauguration. LOL yeah, this one's an inauguration after an election too, but this was one of two inaugurations after a "snap election" (the definition on our article on "snap election" fails to give importance on how momentous this election was), which were held on the same day. So while I'm fine on merging this into People Power Revolution, this inauguration was clearly not analogous to the three examples above, and is clearly of something else.
Merge with People Power Revolution. It's the same event.--Theparties (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to People Power Revolution per Theparties. Come to think of it, this inauguration was simply an event within the broader EDSA Revolution (albeit a pivotal one), and thus doesn't really have any notability outside of it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:12, 5 February 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) 10:08, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subliminal Stimuli (band)

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

No independent indications of notability from major musical sources; no major labels. - Altenmann >t 16:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per the nominator. Ironholds (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Release on a label -> https://sites.google.com/site/channelqrecords/artists/subliminal-stimuli

Notability from music sources -> http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Subliminal-Stimuli/54167/

Published works -> https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/w32-.-mydoom-mm/id786770671

The page qualifies for some of the following notability standards:

"Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

"Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre."

"Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture."

Conkern65 (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. What publications? What tunes? What style? Ironholds (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, vanity unsated. - Altenmann >t 03:42, 9 February 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) 10:07, 9 February 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with chromatic harmony

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

This seems to me to fall under WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. The presumed final state of this page would be a list of all notable songs which modulate or display more than 3--4 chords of harmony. I'm guessing there are thousands of such songs with articles on Wikipedia. If this information does belong in an encyclopedia, perhaps a series of categories might be a better way to organize it. platypeanArchcow (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be easy to create a long list of things wrong with the article and say delete. However, what it really needs is some tender loving care - having a list of examples of chromatic harmony is a good thing. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Userful for obvious reasons, though presumably not obvious enough to whoever proposed the deletion. There may be problems, on a song by song basis, avoiding OR and finding RS for the inclusion of this or that particular song On the other hand one may argue this falls under WP:BLUE and that the RS is the song itself. In any case this article, in principle, has value and a place in WP. Contact Basemetal here 15:00, 6 February 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) 09:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This actually seems to be "examples of all modulations and accidentals using popular songs from the 1950s onward" except that it doesn't actually point out where the modulations occur, so in that regard it is pretty useless. Behind this, however, is the reality that modulation is an incredibly common technique that as a rule wouldn't be considered chromaticism per se. There are probably some examples of true chromaticism out there in non-jazz pop music, but this list isn't it, and it wouldn't be organized this way at any rate. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Reposted from above). This page has become a valuable source of information for a variety of users, including music educators, music students, and curious listeners alike. The current format (i.e. categories & tables), while perhaps not ideal, caters to the needs of the widest possible audience for this information. The suggestion to restructure this page as a series of categories has both advantages and disadvantages. While reformatting might yield a cleaner presentation, it would also hide potentially useful information about chromatic harmony, such as the relative frequency of given structures. It may be possible to move the song examples for each structure (e.g. secondary dominants) to their appropriate wiki pages (i.e. it seems natural for an encyclopedia page to include examples). In doing so, presumably all examples from the current page could be moved to their associated wiki pages, and weak examples would be removed in the course of time. It seems important to iterate here that the information amassed on this page has value, and that it would be a shame to discard this collective knowledge. I would propose leaving the page intact until the information can be copied elsewhere. Jplazak (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)jplazak[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. slakr^\ talk / 13:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YouNow

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

almost no evidence of any possible importance. The references are essentially just notices. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep: TechCrunch and AllThingsD are highly regarded publications, owned by AOL and the Wall Street Journal respectively. The conferences they sponsor are two of the most well known for emerging tech companies. They are invitation only, meaning that companies that present there are considered significant, worthy of showcasing to technology heavyweights. The AllThingsD reference includes a 14 minute video of YouNow presenting to the audience along with an article that discusses YouNow at some length. Skeats111 ( talk ) 31 January 2014 —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantive coverage, and Skeats' well-intentioned argument is a violation of WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:There are stories from TechCruch and AllThingsD. That looks like some substantive coverage, even if a third source might be preferred for the "multiple sources" requirement. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this, so please help me. I looked at the WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS page, but i do not know which of the violations I'm using. If the article needs a third source, I can certainly find one. Is that the only thing missing? Thanks. Skeats111 ( talk ) 7 February 2014 —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 6 February 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) 09:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Citations are all to Youtube pages, and the article appears to be purely promotional at best. BlitzGreg (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reason I chose the two YouTube citations is to show how well known YouTube celebrities have adopted YouNow as their "live" platform. For example, Jack_Harries has 3.2 million subscribers on YouTube, is notable enough to merit his own WIkipedia page, and has chosen to use YouNow. Dan_Howell, another YouTube vlogger, has 3.1 million subscribers and is considered signficant enough to have his own Wiki page. He too has chosen to be associated with YouNow for his live broadcasts. Also, YouNow bought a competitor BlogTV, that was considered significant enough to have its own page. Skeats111 ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia has a BlogTV page. If you type blogtv.com, you reach YouNow. Is it a good idea to keep BlogTV on WP but remove Younow?

More references http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=171253 http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/09/younowcom-mixes-live-web-performance-with-instant-death.html http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/-1767714.htm Wesakgilda (talk) 02:06, 11 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Burna discography

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

Mostly non-notable releases. No charting singles, only charts used are not reliable. "Featured artist" singles are with non-notable artists. Prod declined by IP for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article was created and edited almost exclusively by confirmed sock accounts being used to promote this little known local artist. I expect additional socks will turn up here and at the article as the discussion continues.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Slim Burna is not known nationally in Nigeria. He's an up-and-coming musician at best. Per Ponyo's statement, he doesn't deserve to have a discography article at the current moment. versace1608 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator is TenPoundHammer, I was only noting the socking issues in case there was overflow to this discussion.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:06, 3 February 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) 09:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article should definitely be deleted as sockpuppetry indicates that it could be people affiliated with the musician, and articles created by sockpuppets or banned users are to be deleted, that's policy. However there does appear to be a large number of citations, so I am a tad unconvinced of my self. BlitzGreg (talk) 09:56, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special service request code

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widespread, almost universal use, throughout the airline and travel industries. Used in all (to my knowledge) GDS systems. Have been in use for decades.--Dmol (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This amounts to WP:ITEXISTS. How is it notable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this passes WP:GNG, and as it is, the article is a directory page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:51, 6 February 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) 09:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Stubify or merge if necessary. BlitzGreg (talk) 09:52, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ishing thingbi lake

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

I am concerned that this does not meet the notability guidelines - though I could not locale a specific GNG subentry for rivers, lakes or waterways of any sort. This lake does not seem to have anything in the way of third party coverage according to a G-search, and on viewing it on the Google maps link it appears to be a very small body of water in the middle of a remote rural area that is - according to the scale - only 150-200ft wide. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:03, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable lake. May be it is a non notable lake located near Ishing thingbi village or area. Rayabhari (talk) 14:10, 8 February 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) 09:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/expand/merge: Article is purely a stub, so it could be merged with a bigger article, maybe? BlitzGreg (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it looks quite small with no references as such available. Size-wise we have no obligation of keeping as there seem to be bigger lakes in the neighbourhood unless this is popular with tourists/suiciders. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel: Play It Loud!

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

Not yet released and no significant discussion of the album outside of blogs, shops, and torrents. (75 "unique" Google results.) Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 19:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the album hasn't been released yet, it is coming out Feb. 11, 2014 (source=https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/disney-channel-play-it-loud/id794189797), which is less than a week away. I see your point, as there definitely isn't any significant talk, but there are sure to be at least a few reviews when it comes out. It would probably be easier to leave the page up for now. If there isn't any information within a few days of release, then it should be deleted. For now, I will see if I can find any additional info and work on improving the format of the page.Moonchïld9 (talk) 04:37, 7 February 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) 09:29, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hostiran

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

Original research without any reference, is not notable. –ebraminio^talk 09:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP: GNG and provides absolutely zero citations BlitzGreg (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Save: Hostiran Is an Iranian company so the official government resources are in Persian. of course we can translate it , just let me know if you need it.

References :

Iranian Government

Notice Of Establishment
Notice Of Trademark Registration
State Organization of Computer Guild Union System - It's the Working License For Computer and network related companies here in Iran.

Webhosting.info

Web hosting Directories

Hot Search
Web Hosting Top
Web Hosting Stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostafakhn (talk • contribs) 05:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Web Festival :

Iran Web Festival Report of Hostiran

Host Iran Official Website :

Hostiran official website

Hostiran.Com - Hostiran.Net - Hostiran.Org - Hostiran.IR Mostafakhn (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely

Mostafa

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 February 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) 02:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management

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

I am unable to determine if this is a college or a trade school. If it is a degree granting university or college, we would keep it as a matter of course. As we cannot tell that, it has no real indication of notability beyond mere existence. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Will reconsider if evidence of status as a secondary school is found. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on added sources I am satisfied that this is a degree granting secondary school. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Vocational school" in Taiwan is not necessarily a secondary school. Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management is neither a university nor a secondary school. It is a technical institute or junior college. It has 5-year curriculum as a 5-year junior college and 2-year curriculum as a 2-year junior college. Students graduate with the equivalent of an associate degree.--Quest for Truth (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Colleges are considered notable by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Keep. See comment below. Per nomination. The link showing Ministry of Education (MOE) in the title is a pdf with information on the college, it is not an authorisation nor an endorsement from the MOE so adds no weight in favour of the notability argument. The only result returned by a search at the English MOE Taiwan web site returns a spreadsheet showing that they have two foreign students. A search in Chinese returns nothing. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 17:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Philg88: This pdf can be found from MOE in the following way: On the MOE official web site, click on "技專院校" (technical and vocational institutions). It links to a website led by MOE and maintained by Chien Hsin University of Science and Technology (UCH), as stated at the bottom right corner of the web page. Then click on "專科學校一覽表" (list of vacational schools) and the Chinese name of HSC can be found on the right. It is a link to the pdf. So I see this as an endorsement from the MOE. If you want a more solid evidence in English from MOE, I would suggest you to go to the MOE official website in English. Click on "School Information" then click "Universities, Colleges & Junior Colleges". It links to a spreadsheet prepared by MOE and with a title "List of Universities & Colleges". HSC is listed on the 165th row. This is clearly an authorisation from MOE. The search engine of MOE is faulty. A better way is to use Google to search through moe.edu.tw or moe.gov.tw. For instance I can find a list in pdf which has a title "103學年度教育部核定技專校院各校【五專】招生科組名額一覽表" (List of enrolment quota of MOE approved technical and vocational institutions [5-year vocational] in the school year of 103rd year of the Republic) and shows the "核定招生名額" (approved enrolment quota) of each department of technical and vocational schools. HSC is on the list, so it indicates approval from the MOE. Searching for reliable sources about HSC is not easy especially when the sources about HSC in English are very limited but the notability of HSC should not be undermined. --Quest for Truth (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @User:Quest for Truth: Your thorough research tips the balance back in favour of notability - I didn't realise there was a fault in the MOE search engine, which explains why I didn't find anything. I've changed my opinion to "Keep" but it might be an idea to add the references you found to the article to avoid a future AFD listing. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The normal standard we have keen using is not what a school calls itself, or is called by the government, but whether it offers college degrees, as contrasted to certificates. Where the nomenclature is different, the usual standard for making the equivalence is that a degree requires completion of secondary education plus at least 2 or 3 years of further full time study. In the US, most junior colleges offer the AA Associate in Arts degree, a two year degree considered the equivalent of the first two years of a US undergraduate college. They also generally offer a variety of shorter programs leading to a certificate. Most US trade schools in the past offered certificates, Currently, the better of them also offer a two year program leading to an Associates degree and many of the are changing their name of College... or Junior college ... etc.

Elsewhere, it of course varies. As I understand it, in the UK, higher education in the past in many professions including law, architecture, accountancy, and the like has not led to formal degrees, but to certifying exams of some sort. We normally count them if they require the same length of time as a UK bachelors degree; the pressure from the US educational system seems to leading to more of them offering academic degrees. In Australia & Canada, the US system is now generally followed, In India, the US system is now standard, with the complication that many of what would be US colleges or even graduate schools do not technically have degree granting power; they offer a certificate on the basis of which an associated university which does have degree granting power provides the degree, automatically without further examination. This is apparently on the point of changing to a closer approximation of the US system.

Based on our articles, which appear seriously out of date, China now has a system basically similar to the US. I think it would be extremely valuable to update and expand these articles, and doing this is immensely more important than whatever we decide here. '

Though an American, I have worked a good deal with material on the Indian system; despite the apparent chaos, there is usually enough material in English on the web to figure out what is going on. If there is not, I don't work on the article. For China, I do not always find such material. As I said earlier, I could not figure out what was the status of the institution. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 13 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Solanki

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

I can't corroborate notability via Google, and the article is referenced to a large number of sources not independent of the article's topic, and no independent, reliable ones. Despite the slightly different spelling, the author's user name indicates this is an autobiography, adding to its promotional feel. Insights into how things seem to him and what gives him immense pleasure lend to the autobiographical of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not backed by reliable sources and independent third part sources. Article created largely on facebook links and his own company's website links - which are not acceptable sources. Jethwarp (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author left me a comment a few days ago that led me to expect he had already understood the issue and was going to have the page deleted, but that hasn't happened. One possibility is that he isn't looking at his watch list, so, I'll ping him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and highly self-promotional.
STRONG DELETE - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, and an article about Ravi Solanki written by a user named Ravi Solanky smacks of vanity and self-promotion. Burn this.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:03, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National American Miss

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

What is the evidence that shows that the pageant is notable, or even of significance? DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There is something here. It's a decently written article with good detail. But the sources just don't quite push it over the WP:N threshold. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:46, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howard M. Guthmann

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

An accountant with a substnatial civic presence, but that is not the same as notability. Obvious COI, which perhaps makes it understandable why an article would be written; what is less understandable is why ist should have been accepted at AfC. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find myself agreeing with DGG in an AfD, which is rather surprising, as historically we've wound up on opposite sides many more times than not. Nonetheless, "delete per nom". Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:48, 18 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Razorba

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

That the NYT gave it a mention as a curiosity is not evidence it belongs in an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all references are adverts. - Altenmann >t 16:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Spore

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

Non-notable local press figure. Orange Mike | Talk 04:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is the largest newspaper in Wisconsin and a major newspaper in the US and this person is the President and publisher of this newspaper. Infmaco (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - see WP:NOTINHERITED. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neuronetrix

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

Their only product is not yet in the market. Nonetheless the articles lists all the officers of the firm, all the general topics related to it, and , for references, quite a few press releases. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as [51] explains, it can take a long time for healthcare start-up to make or break. I can't find any coverage of how the trials ended, although it looks like they should have ended by now. It seems to have only local press coverage, so unless someone finds something spectacular about them, I think they fail WP:CORP, so delete. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), the applicable guideline, due to a lack of depth of coverage and independence of sources. The sources are press releases. - tucoxn\^talk 03:38, 16 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland olympians

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

Unreferenced article about a one-off series of television programs, with no claim to notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Snappy (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. JMHamo (talk) 01:12, 13 February 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. Redirect as appropriate slakr^\ talk / 13:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North East England Mining Archive and Resource Centre

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

fails WP:ORG. Unreferenced for 5 years, I found nothing in BBC, and 2 small gbooks hits. Otherwise google just yields directory listings or WP mirrors. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Sunderland#Organisation where all the relevant content already exists. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Sayano Horimoto

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

fails WP:VICTIM and WP:EVENT. The coverage spikes around the event and sentencing. No long term notability years after the crime. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not demonstrate the impact of the event beyond being horrible news. - Altenmann >t 17:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely in need of a clean-up and expansion and proper format for sourcing. But sources checks out. Altenmanns reasoning for deletion also points out that the article is not formatted correctly at this time but that is not in itself a reason for deletion of a notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sources indeed verify this happened but how does it mere WP:EVENT. Is there long term coverage? I know you like voting keep at murder AfDs but what makes this murder long term notable not a short term spike? LibStar (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence that the incident had a lasting effect. --DAJF (talk) 13:03, 18 February 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) 08:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dagmar Frinta

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

Created in 2011 as a long standing article request, but I can't see much basis for a Wikipedia article about this Manhattan based illustrator. True, she had a six-page feature in a prominent Swiss magazine in 1985, but judging by her own biography on her website, she hasn't received any other coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, no WP:RS that supports any of the claims. Agricola44 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't seem notable at all in the way I am accustomed to discovering in art pages. I also can't find anything about the claims for Syracuse U or Parsons, though they are probably legit. This short article could probably be better turned into a stub for her father, the Czech writer and art restorer Mojmir S. Frinta, with a sub paragraph on her. Jane (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mazaj 95.3 FM

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

Non-notable, unreferenced. Gaba ^(talk) 15:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samvo Group

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:24, 9 February 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 prejudice against recreation provided reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewinder (Melbourne Band)

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

Due to the age of the band and the relatively common name (sidewinder) I could find no sources to show the subject meets WP:BAND and the article, which has been heavily edited by a WP:SPA, does not offer any either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a little bit on the band in this article about one of the members joining another group, Dragon. I'm not seeing much else, however, that would help get this to meet WP:BAND. Gong show 20:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBet

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

Not notable. Awards are minor. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerching Casino

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btwiice

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Herring Artists

AfDs for this article:

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

This article's time may finally be up; it was subject of a deletion discussion on 2005 which was inconclusive, with people promising to improve it. Not much improvement has taken place ...and I fully expect the notability criteria are more rigorous 8 years later! I can't see anything about the group online, there seems to be a claim of notability based on a verbal comment made at a conference, and notability by association based on a couple of members' achievements. Noen of these are convincing, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:21, 9 February 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:A7 slakr^\ talk / 14:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquium (ISP)

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

Not notable. Just another ISP. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One source (the Glasgow Herald and the Sunday Herald are, I think, the same paper). No indication of notability. Delete Neonchameleon (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 9 February 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Kassay

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

no evidence of the work being in museum collections, which is the basic criterion for artists DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ARTIST. The article could use an update, but in case you were wondering why his work is not in a museum collection, here's a source for that: http://observer.com/2011/06/want-to-buy-jacob-kassays-piece-at-art-basel-if-youre-not-a-museum-fuggedaboutit/

Keep - meets wp:GNG fairly comfortably and there is apparently reason for the wp:ARTIST issue from another reliable source. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wet 'N Reckless Brewing Company

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

everything here is either very local, or from the firms own site DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources. A brief mention in this reliable source confirms existence but not notability. BTW the article has been heavily edited by a Special Purpose Account with the same name as the brewery's founder/owner. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I consider the San Diego Reader to be a reliable source (article here). Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do too. I was trying to say that the reference provides coverage, but not significant coverage, from a Reliable Source. I will reword my comment to make it clearer. Sorry for any confusion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did we read the same San Diego Reader article? Now the San Diego Magazine isn't significant coverage. But the Reader? Definitely is. Currently leaning soft delete - a second solid source would be enough for a keep IMO. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake; easy to do since both articles were by Brandon Hernandez, one of San Diego's two main writers about beer. (The other is Peter Rowe of the U-T.) You are right, chameleon; this provides one example of significant coverage, and a second could count as "multiple". --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 9 February 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; redirecting to the article on her late husband Gene Scott may be done at editorial discretion. The main issue here is reliability of sources. From the discussion, much of the subject's attention has been due to a text in the magazine Marie Claire, and it has been established that it is not a reliable source. Looking at the article, this is covered in a section entitled "Secretive past", which appears to consist of speculation. Much of the rest consists of fairly general personal data, made up of sources that contain very brief coverage.

Several of the keep votes have suggested that the article ought to be fixed up becuase the subject is notable, and one provided some sources to show that the article can be fixed up. However, even if this is so, in this case we have an issue with unreliable sourcing on a matter that is invasive on the subject's private past. That is a BLP issue that requires more urgent action than waiting for someone to fix up the article. The consensus is clearly against having this as a separate article.

The choice is therefore between a merge/redirect and outright deletion. The subject is covered in the Gene Scott article, which might suggest a redirect even if there is not really a consensus for it. However, I am calling this an outright deletion since the BLP problems would otherwise remain visible in the page history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Scott (pastor)

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

Nominating this mostly procedurally, but also because it needs a discussion. This is a BLP about a woman who took over pastor duties from her husband after he passed (Gene Scott), but does not appear to have any singular notability except for a theory pushed by Marie Claire prior to her conversion to Christianity. As I believe it to be a possible BLP violation, I will not link to it here, but it is in the talk page, the history, and some discussions in the BLP noticeboard otherwise. I do not see how this person has enough notability to maintain an article even with the questionable material, nor are there enough reliable sources to do so even if the notability was conferred by the questionable theory. So I am nominating this for deletion, and would currently likely vote in favor if I ran across it today at AfD. Previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Scott (televangelist) in 2006. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed multiple times, in multiple places. Here it is, again. It is neither a "theory", nor a "BLP violation". The "Barbie Bridges" stuff is completely verifiable through public records. The problem is, that at this point, we have no way to get it into the article without straying into original research. It's not in the article at this time, and it shouldn't be. This is because it would violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH; not WP:BLP. There's a big difference. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks to the fellow editor for bringing this request. I DON'T agree that this article would still lack notability if Marie Claire were added. But in any case, MC is effectively "banned." One or more admins even tried to ban it from the talk page, which not only I think is absurd. As it stands now, there are no valid sources in the stubby article at all, except 1. as rel her husband, 2. about a church that was sold which is not tied (@ least in the art.) to MS, and 3. about her preaching broadcast schedule. IMO WP BLPs should not function, especially exclusively, as advertisements for their subjects. I am an "inclusionist." 'Have never supported deletion of a WP article I'm sure. But this one IMO should go. Paavo273 (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick indpendent search on the web turned up a good deal of sources on the subject. Clearly it should be scrubbed to meet WP:BLP and then protected if necessary, but deletion is not the solution.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly it should be scrubbed to meet WP:BLP? What the hell is in the article at this point that doesn't meet BLP? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you link some of them here for review? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's one that says that due to vandalism the Wikipedia page had to be removed. I think we can protect pages now... --Paul McDonald (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the article that's been "banned by WP" because it mentions her past as a nude model and porn actress. Paavo273 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there an actual link to the discussion about the "banning of the source" by Wikipedia? I can't find it and would like to know more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if a theory about someone's past can confer notability on them, we need multple, reliable sources. Is there more than this rumor? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe it is a theory or rumor. IMO it's either a fact or a falsehood. MC 2009 cited multiple sources w/ 1st-hand knowledge of MS. If MS is not a Public figure (as in New York Times v. Sullivan), she could have owned the MC company and all those other people who talked "bad" about her to the article author--if it were false. Even if she is a (limited purpose?) public figure, I would think she could have proved the "actual malice" required and still owned 'em all--if it were a falsehood. Paavo273 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Paul McDonald: I'm glad you saw the follow up comments to your vote. It wasn't actually "official" action. More of a de facto banning. Mainly some heavy-handed actions by one or more certain WP admins. (who even tried to ban discussion of it on the talk page) and a chorus of some people who seem to have a personal emotional need for this article to exist, WP rules be damned (probably the basis for s.o. placing the "close connection to subject" tag). I'd refer you to the talk page, especially the top half to see how it went down,e.g., (1--bottom 2 lines of section) and (2--bottom 3 lines of section) . Coincidentally, an unusual number of prior participants on that talk page (weirdly or by coincidence) have been blocked from or voluntarily exited WP. One would have to go back into the history of the talk page to find the actual diffs., but the admin. who doctored the talk page literally expunged the MC2009 material from talk as promised by that admin in my Wikilinked refs above. Another user later added some of it back with his own critique.Paavo273 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be I. Please note that I added it back after a WP:BLPN discussion deemed the material to be acceptable to discuss on the talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing there to scrub or protect. As per copious discussion on article talk page: No notability, and totally lacking meaningful content or source citations because there are NOT any valid sources on the WWW except Marie Claire 2009 which has been "banned." Paavo273 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Marie Claire article hasn't been "banned". It was deemed by consensus to not meet WP:RS for WP:BLP purposes. Prior discussion at the BLP-noticeboard has, however, deemed the article perfectly fine to link and discuss. It's quite conceivable that a better source may be available in the future. It is for this reason that I advocate merging it to Gene Scott–thus preserving the article and its history– until we can have an article that covers her entire life, rather than the tiny portion of it that is currently covered. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Don't know how I missed that. Must not have watched the article. I wouldn't object to a merge as long it involved losing the plug for her broadcast schedule in the text of the article. (Let's face it, there's not much to merge.) That info could be IMO appropriate to keep as a link to the cited broadcast website in "See other" or "External links" @ end of GS article. Paavo273 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Gene Scott. It seems that there isn't much about her lately; there was a time, around the time she started taking over the preaching [52], she did have a higher profile (even leaving aside the rumor discussed in that Marie Clare article). Given the anodyne nature of what's there now and the apparent unlikelihood that the article will be expanded meaningfully anytime soon, merger to Gene's article might be the best alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gene Scott, per my previous proposal. It was opposed, with the false argument: "we have different article-standards for living and dead people". If anyone opposes a merge on these grounds, please note that WP:BLP would absolutely not cease to apply in such a case; it is in effect anywhere any living person is mentioned, anywhere in the encyclopedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 14:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should already have been speedy closed as there is no deletion nomination and no WP:BEFORE. Requests for comment are handled under RfC. affaritaliani.it is a publisher with articles on both the English and Italian Wikipedias. [53] states, "La nota predicatrice televisiva..." (the well-known television preacher). The Wikipedia article itself has attracted attention in the press (MC). So much for wp:notability. Research shows that other names for this topic are Melissa Pastore, Melissa Pauline Peroff, Barbi Bridges, Barbie Bridges, and Mrs. Eugene Scott. As for the argument that the ministry is shrinking, notability is not temporary. Merging with the bio on the previous church pastor would confound the issues of Christianity and nudity with the Gene Scott ministry. Is there any source to show that Gene Scott was aware of the nude pictures? There is little overlap between the two topics, and Gene Scott had more than one wife. Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Merging would confound the issues of nudity and Christianity with the Gene Scott ministry". I don't see how it would, as there is nothing about it currently to merge. It won't be in the article until either a better source is found or there's a change of consensus as to the Marie Claire piece. When and if that happens, there still won't be any confounding, as the article can simply be moved back to a standalone. You're right about there being very little to merge. This is a pathetic article, and it wouldn't bother me one iota if it were deleted. I just figure that per WP:PRESERVE, it would be better to merge to retain the history. History, as in back when the article actually contained some information about her. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been unable to build consensus on the talk page for a merge, why should AfD overturn the current consensus? The policy WP:ATD does not allow the use of AfD for what are really content disputes. Unscintillating (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? There's not really a content DISPUTE, more of a DEARTH of content. It appears IMO that WP:BEFORE has been solidly met. And WP:Notability (people)#Basic criteria states in part, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject." Here a specific "finding" by "consensus" was made by the involved editors (not me) that MC2009 is not reliable, d/n qualify for use in article. I'm not optimistic affaritaliani.it would meet the required standard set by these august contributors. ‘Haven’t read the WP policy about "confounding/overlapping Christianity and nudity" Even if that one exists :-), it's IMO not relevant 'cuz nudity can't come in per the "consensus." Is there really some other technicality that wasn’t followed? Paavo273 (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about, Unscintillating? "Unable to build a consensus"? "Overturn the current consensus"? "Content dispute"? What article are you looking at? I proposed a merge quite some time ago. It got precisely one response: an "oppose" by an editor who mistakenly thought that WP:BLP would cease to apply to Melissa Scott if her article were merged into that of her dead husband. The fact that it got only one response, coupled with the fact that no one even bothered to remove the "merge" tags after over a year, shows how lightly trafficked this article is. The article, its talk page, and now this AfD, are a ubiquity of bedlam. "Merge" is as acceptable a result as any other at an AfD-discussion, and there is nothing that even remotely approaches a consensus on the talk page. Some time ago, an editor attempted to block any attempt to even discuss how the article should be handled. He made all kinds of bizarre removals and redactions, rendering the talk page an unreadable mass of lorem ipsum. I attempted to improve the article to the small degree that was possible; this included restoring the talk page. Restoring the talk page meant hours of sifting through endless revisions to make the fragmented discussions make sense. I also had to double-check that no actual BLP-vios removed during the slash-and-burn were accidentally returned, monitoring simultaneous discussions at the article talk page and the BLP noticeboard. The only other editor who was interested in this article was the one who made the ridiculous removals. He quickly lost interest when the BLPN discussion didn't go the way he wanted. I would have been perfectly within my right to boldly merge the article at that point. It would have been equally acceptable for me to have merged it when, after a reasonable amount of time had passed since the merger had been proposed, it received neither support nor opposition. I honestly don't give a fuck if the article is kept, merged, deleted, or made tomorrow's fucking TFA. Just don't misrepresent my actions or opinions. That I was "unable to build a consensus on the talk page" is utter bullshit; ditto for "asking AfD to override current consensus". If you can't be arsed to research the history you should abstain from commenting here. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am explicitly nominating this for deletion. As my final sentence says, "I do not see how this person has enough notability to maintain an article even with the questionable material, nor are there enough reliable sources to do so even if the notability was conferred by the questionable theory. So I am nominating this for deletion, and would currently likely vote in favor if I ran across it today at AfD." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article for dishonesty. It fails to note Pastor Scott was formerly a porn star know as, "Barbie (Barbi) Bridges." http://xhamster.com/photos/view/1656994-27245364.html#imgTop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.168.143 (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to note something is not dishonesty and dishonesty is not a valid delete-rationale. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Incomplete information is not a reason to delete. If it can be confirmed and doesn't violate policy, then add the information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to just go around in circles. The problem is there are NO qualifying sources. The quantity of Internet sources on topic has shrunk to nothing (except MC2009, which has been disqualified); it hasn't grown. Please READ the article.

The Italian source mentioned above, complete with a nude photo of MS, seems hardly reliable, hardly scholarly.

To keep an article just 'cuz some day a qualifying source might turn up mocks WP's rules WP:NOR, WP:Notability, etc. The main objection to this article IMO is that it says nothing and what extremely little nothing it does say is sourced to GS or MS--and even the MS-sourced cite is dead. Paavo273 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly tempted to simply redirect this article. While doing so during an open AfD-discussion is discouraged (not forbidden), as you said, this is just going around in circles. This discussion is obviously headed for another no consensus, meaning yet more time wasted on such a ridiculously trivial individual. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it listed anywhere, but I'm pretty sure that "wasting time" is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is your point? What are you trying to refute? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by tempted to "redirect" you mean to merge, Joefromrandb, I support that move. My close reading today of WP:Deletion policy turns up one or more ADDITIONAL bases to DELETE this article as well. That includes lack of at least one reliable source. As it stands, the article says virtually nothing, especially after my removal of the gratuitous and unsourced plug for her ministry, "speaks 20 languages..." or whatever.

One of WP's policies is to AGF. I always try to. It's normal when someone jumps into a discussion to not be fully up to speed about what's going on. But when a participant refuses to read and self-educate about the current state and history of the article, especially when pointed directly to the issues, and continues to merely interject comments not based on WP policy or the actual condition of the article, IMO a reasonable admin. could find consensus among those participants who show a baseline understanding of what is required for a WP article and are making informed, serious arguments. Paavo273 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to those who disagree, I don't find the anonymous contributor's vote to Delete based on "dishonesty" completely without merit. It's not exactly in the same sense as the anon. user meant, but IMO there are multiple instances going way back in talk of "arguments" approaching WP:I like it, WP:Begging for mercy, etc. which IMO add up more or less to a form of WP:Gaming the system, meaning reasoning not based on the article or WP policy. And that sort of input has not dried up here in the AFD discussion. If I'm wrong, anyone opposing delete or merge, please tie what you say to some SUBSTANTIVE and/or POLICY-based argument. Paavo273 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor)#Book sources, I have added ~~three~~ ~~four~~ six books published since 2009 that cover Ms. Scott, one of which has an entire chapter devoted to her. This is more than enough to establish notability. — Brianhe (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do these sources discuss the entirety of her life, or do they omit everything from her birth to her marriage to Scott? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both Nightfall and Holy Sinner mention her life before Dr. Scott. If your point is, is her life story subordinate to his, it's just the opposite in the latter: Dr. Scott is mentioned peripherally in the chapter titled "Melissa Scott". — Brianhe (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. You voted "keep" and added sources to the talk page, yet nothing has been added to the article. Why not expand the article using the sources you have found? It may sway opinions here, especially if the actual reason she's notable can finally be added to the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm kind of busy in real life at the moment. The nominator questioned the subject's notability and availability of reliable sources, and I spoke to that. AFAIK AfDs often proceed this way, not with a demand to expand the article before !voting. — Brianhe (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the ~~five~~ six books I listed as sources range from a straight up list of ministries, a novel, biblical commentary, film commentary, to an inquiry into misdeeds of the clergy. This isn't one-off reportage and I see no basis for a claim that someone with this kind of cultural impact falls beneath notability. — Brianhe (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"someone with this kind of cultural impact" ? :-) 'Might want to have a(nother?) look at those six sources and/or see my summary below. Paavo273 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Only one of those books, the longer-form one specifically about her, could confer notability. The problem is that the piece is entirely reliant, again, on a rumor that is unsubstantiated and unproven and arguably a BLP violation. The question remains as to whether such rumors are enough to confer notability in light of BLP. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think TO has identified the problem here concisely. And because User Brianhe has been a main player in preserving this article yet if I recall correctly also in excluding any porn-career info about MS, this definitely calls for clarification.
Firstly, all but one of these six sources are IMO junk, completely worthless in establishing any notability:

(1) Barber 2010 mentions MS just once and IMO is surely no authority on her language abilities, so a ZERO. Barber's few words about MS mainly DO establish a now defunct CONNECTION between MS and the UA cinema, something completely missing in the article's mention of the historical building before a user recently deleted it.
(2) Beverly 2009 also mentions MS just once, to say she took over from GS; that is not in dispute.
(3) Rel Carmichael 2013, not sure how one would argue that sponsoring a pizza party at a remote state prison and giving out religious literature the inmates didn't like would confer notability. Just like Barber, Carmichael is surely no authority on MS's language ability; however, with multiple sources mentioning the language thing, it would be IMO reasonable to mention the language claims, but absolutely not in WP's voice as before.
(4) About Carvajal 2009, this is a NOVEL! WTF? In some obtuse way the mention of WP article deletion (taken from MC2009?) might confer a grain of notability on the WP ARTICLE. But it's a long logical leap from there to notability for MS.
(5) Next, Whitman 2009 appears to be a personal narrative of the author's spiritual or ministerial journey (e.g., "I study more in anticipation of ministry unto Jahweh all my life, and the tools Yahweh God has given me..." p.viii and "[MS] has often ... had periodic pastoral nuggets of exhortation for people to focus on only what she's saying, not anything else..." p.63) 'Can't see how any of these confer notability on MS. Sources can also still be found that post nude photos of s.o. alleged to be MS and either praise her looks or ridicule her perceived hypocrisy.

That leaves Webb 2013, which includes largely the same material as MC 2009. Since Webb is being offered as a reliable source to establish notability (IMO the ONLY one of the SIX offered by Brianhe for which a serious argument can even be made for establishing notability for MS), is Brianhe now totally okay with a discussion of MS's real or according to Webb, "theor[etical]", porn career? If so, we @ least now have something to use to flesh out the article a little. (Whether or not it confers notability and so deserves its own article is a separate issue, as others have noted.) If not, then these SIX references amount IMO to exactly squat.
If Brianhe IS offering Webb 2013 as a reliable source for use in the article--and to do so for any other reason w/b a serious self-contradiction--IMO MC2009 also deserves a revisit, because now we have a corroborating (and then some) source for MC2009.
Finally, one other issue that is likely to come up later if not now: Most of these sources are extremely dubious as not being printed by major publishing houses: Whitman--CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Webb--CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Carvajal--Fear Nought Publishing; Carmichael--AuthorHouse; ('Not sure about Barber's Reaktion Books.) Paavo273 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Paavo, for taking the time to research these sources. I was puzzled that a "keep" voter would list potential sources on the talk page while making no effort to incorporate them into the article. Your analysis seems to help clear that up. I can tell you right now that if this source discusses "her theoretical porn career", there's no way it's going to be allowed in. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending the quality of each of the sources above as information that could go into an infobox; however I think my argument that they are, as an aggregate, evidence of her notability is still true. In brief, is a novel a good source for biographical details? No, of course not. Is it a good source for the notability of a non-fictional subject mentioned in the novel? Yes. I don't know if we have enough independent material to start talking about the alleged connections in Scott's past. And I have a right to change my mind in the 2+ years of watching and contributing to this article. However there is definitely enough to establish that she is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader, and should have a Wikipedia article. I feel like the discussion has slid from an offhand dismissal, to a delete nomination without a serious search for sources (I found the first 4 books in a few minutes at Google Books), to, once they were found, criticism of the depth of the sources (a chapter in a book is trivial?) or the names of the publishers. People involved in this AfD have made unhelpful comments like the subject is a "ridiculously trivial individual", the article is being stood up by the "MS fan club" and "we don't need an article about every TV preacher." Please try to look at this objectively whether or not you like her message. Can we decide together at least that the subject is notable, then go on to decide how to improve the article, perhaps on its talk page? — Brianhe (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I have a right to change my mind in the 2+ years of watching and contributing to this article." That IMO is absolutely reasonable. What is not reasonable is to just make up your own rules.
You can't just push your own theory of Notability such as "my [offered sources] are, as an aggregate, evidence of her notability..." OR "[T]here is definitely enough to establish that she is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader, and should have a Wikipedia article." Just saying it 'don't make it so. ** "prominent cultural figure as a religious leader..."?! You've gotta' be kidding!
You can't have it both ways: offering sources you say are reliable to establish notability but then saying you're not sure if they can be used. There's simply no such WP authority. It is true that notability established by a reliable source is still subject to other WP rules. But there are not two different standards; either the source is reliable or it isn't. I agree with Joefromrandb that it would be helpful if you had edited the article according to your "reliable" sources. At the very minimum, you need to point out WHAT SPECIFIC PART(S) of what source(s) you find make her notable AND are reliable for inclusion in the article.
As for unhelpful comments, interjecting cavalier remarks or "offering" sources without REALLY offering them, or I.D.ing sources which clearly do NOT establish notability are IMO most unhelpful; and this sort of contribution wastes a lot of GF participants' time.
WP:Notability also specifies, "[Notability] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." *** Given the current state of the article, IF no consensus can be found to delete, I wholly support and would gladly assist, if asked, any editor's action to merge the article UNTIL such time the article actually says something and might be worthy of a standalone. *** This article consists of all of seven lines and even that consists only of her taking over GS's "ministry" + her broadcast schedule; it not only includes nothing NOTABLE about her, it includes virtually NOTHING about her period--no biography, no education, no prominence, no connections, no cultural identity, no leadership, no anything. Instead of The Man Without a Past, this article reads like the woman without a past. Paavo273 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, taking sources in aggregate is explicitly allowed by WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." So, we have multiple independent, published sources discussing the subject as required by WP:BIO. Now why should the article be in jeopardy of deletion? — Brianhe (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the weight of the references involve an unconfirmed rumor that is arguably a violation of WP:BLP? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And because the other FIVE of six sources offered say nothing individually and therefore nothing together. Five times zero still equals ZERO. The critical second part of the sentence Brianhe left out of his policy quote above is "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

The question asked by at least two different editors that we still can't seem to get an answer to is WHAT specifically can we take from any of those sources--even if we assume they're reliable--that in any way--individually or collectively--establishes notability.

As with a lot of what occurred the last couple years on the talk page, what we have here IMO is continuation of a long-ongoing, heretofore successful effort to keep this article that borders on WP:Gaming the system--making arguments and "citing rules" in a way that appear prima facie to be valid but totally and completely lack substance. What reasonable person who knows this subject, even if s/he included all the source material actually excluded for lack of reliabilty, would take seriously the statement, "...[S]he is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader"?! Paavo273 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I've said in past discussions, the Marie Claire article regarding the subject's past is true, but it cannot be verified without resorting to original research; that's the dilemma this situation has always teetered on. Until a definitive source comes along and breaks the story for good, what we're left with is a pastor of a church with no source coverage of Ms. Scott directly, but rather coverage of her late husband and the church itself. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Who among you believe(s), just arguendo, IF the porn career WERE to come in (via Webb2013 or MC2009), that would make the subject notable? If not, then IMO it's clear what needs to be done here--posthaste. IOW, does a former non-notable porn model who becomes a non-notable tv preacher add up to a notable person? Paavo273 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If the rumor could be confirmed with reliable sources, I would probably argue to keep the article. As it stands, no one appears to be able to do so, which is why there's a problem: an article should not continue to exist based on the notability of a possibly damaging rumor. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Without mentioning the controversial biographical material, I've incorporated book sources 1, 2 and 5 into the article, as well as pieces in The New York Times and D Magazine. — Brianhe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Better have a COLLECTIVE look at those sources, y'all! Now the dubious porn sources come in but the porn info is censored out? WTF kind of logic or process is that? Good sense and I'm sure WP procedure rel reliability of sources can't allow that to fly. How will it be decided what comes in and what stays out? Is there to be a specially appointed WP censor for this article? What about the nude modeling? What about the pony-girl phase? What will WP readers think when they read the cited porn sources? Does anyone really think this is a viable way to source an article?

And why is a blurb (that includes porn info) in a LOCAL magazine and a 5-page "chapter" in a virtually self-published (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) book all about her porn past permitted while a researched feature article in a national magazine excluded?

The NYT obit's total mention of MS: "He is survived by his wife, Melissa." Mentioning s.o.'s name doesn't make her notable as per the missing second half of the sentence on WP policy you left out in your discussion above: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." So please don't offer that one as establishing notability. Paavo273 (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, claiming that others (like me) who don't agree with your viewpoint are "gaming the system" and "wasting [other people's] time" is unproductive, uncivil and not AGF. I'm a longstanding member of the Wikipedia community and don't appreciate that comment. I've provided sources for this AfD in a completely appropriate way and have both invited feedback on them on the article talk page, and days later added them to the article as a demonstration of their suitability.

Let's do a little thought experiment. If the Nowheresville, Oklahoma Shopper's Gazette mentioned Pastor Bob in passing, and Pastor Bob's sermons are listed in the local gazette but never reached the eye of published critical commentary, maybe we would agree that it wouldn't support a Wikipedia article on Pastor Bob. However, if The New York Times mentions M.S. in passing, and the content of her sermons is also mentioned by a notable author like Stephen Barber (notice the bluelink), then I think we should agree that it supports a Wikipedia article on M.S. This is why the guideline says "trivial coverage may not…"; we have to take it in context and make a reasonable decision about what notability the sources (plural) confer. Not to mention the fact that coverage that would be trivial if it appeared in a local gazette doesn't quite equate to its triviality when the same information appears in the national newspaper of record; I think one could argue that any issue covered in NYT's A section is non-trivial by definition.

Now as to the sources I've offered. Claiming as you have that if only a small snippet of information is usable from a particular source, that source should be entirely invalidated, contradicts common sense and Wikipedia policy. Citing the NYT Eugene Scott obituary just for the fact that M.S. is his wife, is fine, and in fact this biographical detail wasn't captured by any online citations so it was even necessary. Citing the book Holy Sinner which has controversial bio details I'd rather not touch at this time, to establish that M.S. has claimed knowledge of many languages, is also appropriate. We can pick and choose the bits of each source that are appropriate and improve the article, and leave out the bits that either deal with off-topic issues, or touch on controversial material that we have agreed through consensus should not be in the article. You ask by what logic or process will good sources be found, by a judge? No, by consensus. This is not "censorship", it is abiding by the decisions of the Wikipedia editor community. The fact that you don't or won't recognize this reflects poorly on your grasp of Wikipedian principles. You are promulgating an illogical all-or-nothing approach that inevitably would lead to an empty shell of an article, which is pretty much where it stood a week ago, and exactly what I'm trying to avoid by adding well-chosen and well-sourced biographical details to the extent that they can be found. — Brianhe (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* > > > Discussion continued below < < <

Questions. This person is pastor at "Faith Center Church" (currently redlinked). Does this merit an article? If it doesn't, why does Scott merit one? The claims made for her look ropey. (Actually the claim about her past is from a source that looks more carefully done than anything that is cited.) One claim within the current article is that "Scott is reported to claim to be able to speak 20 languages." There are two sources for this: an article that looks like the product of ten minutes' work, and a book from a very obscure publisher. Well, the claim is usefully discrete (and non-libelous). Let's see: Scott says herself that she has "a mastery of over 25 languages". That's five more languages; and mastery, excellent. This page offers her in not 24 but just three languages (Spanish, Japanese, Tagalog) aside from English. When I click on any of these links I see a video (often at a wrong aspect ratio) of her talking in English with an interpreter putting what she says into one or other of the three languages. Am I missing something? -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: 'Appreciate your cogent and slightly humorous, understated analysis. Great point IMO rel notable pastor @ non-notable church; I think you're the first to raise that. :-) Don't think you're missing anything. Would you care to vote? Paavo273 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no problem with deletion, the argument: if her church isn't notable, she isn't either", is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb, try this: If she isn't notable for activities or achievements outside her church (and as far as I can see she is not), and if her church is not notable (and I don't claim to know), then she is not notable. How'm I doing? (And is her church notable?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that a pastor can be notable without her church being notable, and vice-versa. Notability comes down to significant coverage in reliable sources, something this woman, IMO, lacks. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: In my view the Faith Center is notable,[54][55] but its notability is largely based on its history and is essentially inseparable from the notability of its extremely famous former minister and its somewhat less famous current one. Which is why, after reading all the discussion here, I still come down in favor of merging and redirecting Melissa Scott to Gene Scott.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb: Agreed--if this were being reduced to deductive reasoning ala "If A, then B" syllogisms. IMO, it's just one more illustration of the nothingness/non-notability of the subject for a very long time. As much pointed out, she has to be notable some way to stay, and it sure isn't from her church. The UA Cinema where MS preached for a short time IS notable, but not because of her. She doesn't appear 2 qualify under Pornographic actors and models.

BTW, WHERE do you think this AFD is at? (I think it is at or close to consensus based on the WP:Consensus standard. For sure the vote but also IMO the level of reasoning is one-sided.) Paavo273 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Clearly the article has massive BLP issues due to verification problems and I'm not convinced the subject meets WP:GNG partly because of the verification problems.Blethering Scot 16:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this discussion shows, to me, a complete lack of consensus so far. Can another sysop re-list this or close it thusly? Bearian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 11 February 2014‎

@Bearian: What about this AFD shows a "complete lack of consensus" to you and why are you asking for another admin to close it? It appears that activity here is just now picking up, and that a consensus is building for merge or delete. Only a couple "Keep" votes based on misapplication of WP policy, and a growing number of merge and Delete votes. IMO & IME "consensus" is at best a SLIPPERY concept both in real life and in Wikiworld, often used by those who want to get their way and avoid an up/down vote. The WP:Consensus page does offer significant guidance including the following: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." IMO that has serious applicability here. One or two contributors IMO are pushing the "Keep" position w/o much or any substance or WP policy to support them. As such, I respectfully request this discussion and hopefully building consensus be allowed to play out here.
If an admin. is to get involved wearing her/his admin. hat at this point, I'd ask that it be to join in the discussion and give an opinion of the relative strength of reasoning presented in this discussion rel WP policy and the facts of the article. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just wanted to hold this open while we could do a bit more research before taking action. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with delete. The only really independent notability is some salacious allegations by a woman named Marie Claire. I conducted several research paths online, and found -- not much. There's a really nasty blog from the Free Republic, which is not a reliable source; nor are any of the blogs or websites she runs. The New York Times article mentions her, but only in passing, and in her husband's obit (which, FWIW, proves her husband's notability, not hers). The biggest problem I'm having finding reliable sources that might exist is that she shares a name with a well-known SF writer, Melissa Scott (writer). Bearian (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some salacious allegations by a woman named Marie Claire I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or (pardon me) obtuse. Somebody called Gretchen Voss has a long article about our biographee, "The preacher's unholy past", on marieclaire.com (see Marie Claire). This is dated 2009. This suggests that it has been there for four years. At its foot we read "©2014 Hearst Communication, Inc. All Rights Reserved." Hearst sounds to me like a company that could shell out quite a bit in a libel payment, yet I infer that its lawyers have played down or dismissed the risk of a successful libel suit. NB I wouldn't be keen to have this material added to the article even if the latter survived AfD. Nevertheless, it looks more substantive than the dribs and drabs about the woman's linguistic prowess, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

> > > Discussion continued from few paragraphs above < < <

@Brianhe:

I've explained w/ evidence--quotes of yours, analysis of your sources, cited policy, etc.--my basis for believing your arguments here range from shaky to utterly w/o merit. No point to repeat.

It’s frustrating to keep pointing out broken logic seemingly ad infinitum. There’s no objection to using NYT to establish MS was GS’s wife. The problem is your level of reasoning about cumulative trivial nothing sources adding up to notability (still persisting in your "thought experiment" above). Obits. mention family members, whether it’s the NYT or the Bumblefudge Weekly Despatch. It doesn’t confer one iota of notability 2B named as a family member in an obit. And it doesn’t amount to “cover[age]” of the family member of the deceased "in a national publication". And adding sources like this together with the other sources you offered 2 establish notability, you still get NADA. 0 + 0 = 0 and 5 X 0 = 0

Well, what do other editors think?

In looking back at the prior discussions Brianhe cited on my talk page ( Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive107#Melissa Scott and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive188#Unreferenced defamatory assertions on Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor), I see the same broken reasoning as presented here. If Marie Claire 2009 was not a RELIABLE source and couldn’t be used, it IMO makes no sense to allow the use of much less authoritative sources that talk about MS’s porn career.

The ideas of “limited-purpose reliability” within a source and that WP editors are supposed to by concensus line-item veto or approve RELIABILITY (not to be confused with relevance) of info within a given source seems IMO completely unworkable. Is there any specific WP policy or precedent on point?

IM(revised)O, even if the porn career comes in, notability is still nowhere to be found. Non-notable porn model PLUS non-notable TV preacher EQUALS non-notable subject.Paavo273 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment remember, consensus can change. Consensus can also be incorrect. I see no reason to disallow the Marie Claire article. I know that there are arguments against its use, I just disagree with those points. We should be careful to not just drink the WP:KOOLAID on this one and re-investigate the facts and not the folklore.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libel or not, this article is still a total mess. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate. Either (A) delete and salt or (B) turn into a redirect and fully protect this. And ditto for actual or likely alternative article titles. (I neither know nor much care which of these two options.) Why? Well, the only thing that seems to have changed since the 2007 DELREV is that there is now a long and detailed article on a part of this person's life that she clearly wants forgotten (an article that is imaginably mistaken and libelous, though Hearst's confidence in publishing it and leaving it on the web for years makes me doubt this). As for her current profession, the other sources I've looked at seem to lack authority, or to be very slapdash, or both. If a DELREV concludes that an article should stay deleted, then it should stay deleted; unless of course it is agreed in a second DELREV that "notability" (or whatever) has changed so greatly that the article should restart. Here the DELREV was ignored (or not noticed), and though AfDs that result from unilateral restarts can at times give rise to mildly entertaining argle-bargle, they're mainly a waste of time. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD so far, and request for further inut So far the vote is about 7-2 in favor of delete or merge. Consensus is supposed to be based on WP policy including the following: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." It's not a vote, but rather the strength of argument(s). Brianhe has graciously provided links to the sources he's offered (except for the NYT obit. in the MS art. but I added)--they're all short and easy reading--along with his view of how they make MS notable. I and other contributors have offered analysis rel why we don't think they make her notable. See links to those sources listed on the talk page HERE.

QUERY 1: Does the Marie Claire article's admissibility need a revisit, along the lines of what Paulmcdonald is saying?

QUERY 2: But B4 we go there, if that's what y'all want to do, assuming we admit Marie Claire in full can someone make a WP-policy-based argument for the proposition that any OR ALL of the contents of that article, if included in the MS article, would make MS notable? (As mentioned above, IMO Non-notable porn model PLUS non-notable TV preacher STILL EQUALS non-notable subject.) Paavo273 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gene Scott or *Delete. Only looking at the article itself I fail to see anything in the article to make it worth keeping. Almoust everything about the church work was done by her and Gene Scott. It seems after his death she just took over and kept going but not really adding anything new. I admit I dont live in USA so for me this was the first time I ever heard of her but after a google search on her name I see she does seem to have some notibility atleast in the field of rumours. Still this article doesnt mention why exactly she is notable except of being a tv pastor amongts many many of them. Are we to have a page for each tv pastor? Can anyone even imagine how many there are around the globe? Still what is it that makes her a notable tv pastor? Merge the article with Gene Scots article would be the best option or delete it.Stepojevac (talk) 21:27, 15 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Internet

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and noteworthy accomplishments. — Cirt (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment anyone got a copy of the Guinness Book of Records that has them? Because that's the only notable issue I see. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:Promotional BlitzGreg (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited from having hosted the record-setting show. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some passing mentions including facilitating podcast download record.[56][57][58] Although only passing mentions, the rather generic name complicates the search for sources. It'd be helpful to have sources stating numbers of employees, etc. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial awards, no substantial coverage, no apparent importance now or earlier. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 20 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodbath of B-R5RB

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

Media coverage is short and attributable to sensationalism (see: WP: PERSISTENCE and WP: SENSATION), and the event has no established notability or significance outside of the game itself. The article makes extensive reference to entities, tactics, and events not discussed anywhere else. The title is also not NPOV. — scetoaux (T|C) 06:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the tactics are referenced here, here, and especially here.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the article, "Joystiq called the battle potentially the largest recorded PvP battle in any game to date." I think that this is the article's best claim to significance outside the game. The article itself does often refer to various entities and events that certainly do not meet notability guidelines. These references make it very hard to understand the events covered by the article within context. Xanatos290 (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed with Xanatos above. If this is indeed the "largest recorded PvP battle" in gaming history, then it is a significant cultural event in itself and a record of it ought to persist in Wikipedia. Agreed that it should be edited for an audience is not familiar with the internal mechanics of the game itself, or of multiplayer online games in general. damian0815 (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I'm the article's creator, so I will refrain from voting. I agree that the aftermath section has too much material sourced only to primary sources, and that information could be condensed. If someone with different eyes than mine can edit the article so that it is more understandable, I would appreciate it. I myself am unfamiliar with the game, but I think I've become too hyperfocused to be able to clean it up effectively. I could definitely highlight what makes it notable.

As to the title, how is that an issue of NPOV? That's what participants called it, and Polygon, Joystiq, Inqisitr, Wired UK, and TechSpot all called the battle that as well, so I don't see why that's a problem.

As for whether it's sensationalism, while news stories did get carried away with it, and early stories had widely different and highly exaggerated cash numbers, I think the level of coverage in so many different sources combined with coverage of the battle lasting over a week, qualifies the subject as notable. And some articles, such as this one, this one. and this one actually took time to delve into the details of how PLEX conversion works and didn't just spout off numbers. Also, news coverage [59] [60] of CCP Game's plan to build a real-life monument to the game also mention the battle, though granted this announcement is only about a week after the battle. Ars Technica the battle as an opportunity to talk about how the game builds emotional investment in players.

Fourth point: The battle attracted 15,000 players to try out the game, though it's too early at this point to know if they will stay. I might be getting into unwarranted extrapolation, but last year, Reuters mentioned in an article on Iceland's economy that CCP Games is possibly the most important company for that country's desperate economy, so this battle, by attracting new players, potentially has real world economic impact.

Finally, and probably most importantly, as was mentioned above by another editor, the battle was quite possibly the largest PvP engagement ever [61], [62].--¿3family6 _contribs 15:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some cleanup to the article, if someone wants to do more, please feel free.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Player versus player - As laid out by the sources presented above, the event is certainly notable as the "largest recorded PvP battle", and is notable in the context of online gaming, but I do not believe it has enough independant notability to be featured in a standalone article. The PvP article should be expanded to include notable events which generated press coverage independant of the games in which they took place, preferably from a real-world prespective. This is probably going to be a landmark in the history of PvP. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I reviewed the DYK, and I gave the nominator grief over the $300,000 figure, which isn't really real money, when it came to running a hook. However, for purposes of notability, it makes absolutely no difference whether the notability is based on truth or lies, deserved or not. Notable is notable - sources wrote, so we can read and summarize them. I need only name any number of celebrities famous for nothing but being famous, which we have articles about. I'd seen these stories on my own, before I ever went to do a QPQ, and I appreciated greatly that we had a Wikipedia article that got to the bottom of it. Additionally, there is a gaming magazine saying it is one of the largest of a certain kind of battle in video gaming so far. I should note that I have not generally been very friendly to featuring video games; I wouldn't support this if it hadn't made some kind of lasting impression. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on the articles talk page, why would Corrupted Blood incident be notable enough for its own article while this isn't? 178.75.185.119 (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Corrupted Blood incident has fully half the page devoted to its use as a case study in real world epidemiology and (to a lesser extent) anti-terrorism. This gives it a considerable boost to scope and WP:PERSISTENCE. Binkyuk (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. While I don't particularly like it, this does seem to meet the WP:GNG. The variety of sources and their reliability suggests that this is not WP:SENSATION. It's too early to tell whether it will pass or fail WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING. Binkyuk (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An example of post-event analysis (though this writer is awfully pretentious in the terms that they throw around): [63]--¿3family6 _contribs 22:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ample secondary/tertiary sources and difficulty of merging this into main game article. Tezero (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources to different news outlets throughout the article. Prose, NPOV, etc. could be improved, but that's not reason to delete the article outright. As to avoid being repetitive of posts above my own, I will simply agree with their reasoning for why the article can be considered acceptable under notability standards. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:42, 19 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coinkite

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cryptobank

Articles for deletion/Coinkite (2nd nomination)

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

Fails to meet notability standard. The first AfD decision was reached on January 24 to delete, and the article was recreated on January 27. Agyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The "first" nomination was a group nomination making this the second. There were some issues with transclusion which have now been resolved. Stalwart111 07:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coinkite has received non-trivial and verifiable coverage from most major Ontario news outlets and from national sources. The previously deleted article was poorly sourced and included original research, but I have rectified this. The current article meets the criteria set by Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Jasonid (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are great, but did not support most of the information in the article (I removed unsourced info). Per notability, Toronoto Star gave the subject significant coverage. Cbc.ca, CHCH, and Globalnews.ca have very minor mentions of Coinkite (two or three short paragraphs each), and Bitcoin Magazine mentions it trivially as one of four companies in a single sentence. Agyle (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as recreated material with little or no changes whatsoever. Citation Needed | Talk 12:23, 18 February 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:BLP1E slakr^\ talk / 14:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Akahi

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

This page exists only to propagate the idea that this person has a claim to the throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It has been a contentious article due to the lack of reliable sources that show this to be accurate in any way. There are concerns that the article may be promoting criminal activity by promoting a person or subject only known for one thing...vandalism of the Iolani Palace. Notability hinges on that one aspect and the article appears to be an almost constant soap box. After removing all unsourced claims...very little remains and is unlikely to be expanded Mark Miller (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be WP:ONEEVENT--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 16 February 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) 01:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory carved tusk depicting Buddha life stories

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

Individual piece of art does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I'd propose a merger into National Museum of India instead, but realistically nobody's ever going to use this article title as a search term. Wieno (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator per proposal to move. Wieno (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original objection to this article was notability. Discussions and views by various editors below seem to indicate that the general view is it is perhaps notable. The museum staff and gallery experts who supported the GLAM project think so and have given it pride of place centrally in the gallery. IMHO the object deserves presence as a separate article. Quite open to rephrasing the title to reflect the object better (please suggest). There is enough precedence of museum objects having separate articles. Arunram (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with keeping it separate. The title is ok, though personally I'd add a disambiguatory "(National Museum of India)" or just "(Dehli)", though the MOS suggests not doing that - but these MOS rules are very bad in this area. One alternative might be: Ivory tusk carved with the life of Buddha (National Museum of India). Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to your suggestion to re title if that makes everyone comfortable. Thanks. Arunram (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seems to be plenty of coverage, though there doesn't seem to be an accepted English-language name for the piece which means nailing down coverage is a little harder. It is, however, mentioned in this article as one of the museum's feature pieces highlighted when the museum reopened in 2013. This article mentions it in the same way but includes a photo of it as the article's feature image. It's mentioned twice in this article about the reopening. It has also received coverage in this book. Again, coverage-locating is more difficult in this instance because nobody seems to have agreed on a name but that also suggests there should be quite a few sources in non-English sources given its apparent national significance. There's also a matter of it, as an art work, being of national significance enough so that it has been featured in an internationally-regarded National Museum. An artwork with that level of importance is probably notable, regardless of coverage. Placement like that in a museum like that is, effectively, significant coverage in my view - the Museum being a reliable source of information with regard to artworks of national significance. Stalwart111 07:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or repurpose Probably notable as an individual object, but this is much the fullest coverage we have of this long and important tradition of Buddhist iconography, and the material should certainly be kept somewhere. The object is really more significant as an example of a type than an individual, and the type is certainly notable. We have exceptionally poor coverage of the vast subject of Indian art, and it is very depressing to see (not for the first time) the few articles we have attacked in this way. There is far less material available online in English on objects in Indian museums as neither the museums nor Indian publishers put much online, and this needs to be taken into account. It could be repurposed into Iconography of the Life of the Buddha with few changes, and then later added to with other examples. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was moved there it would probably be much easier to find as well. If you'd be willing to perform the move I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Wieno (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll give people 3 days or so to object, & if no-one does will move. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me, for what it's worth. I think it should be kept but if the title changes to make it easier to find, that's fine by me. Stalwart111 21:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The focus of this article is the object. Perhaps Buddhist iconography is a separate article in itself. Would suggest renaming the title to reflect the object better. Thanks Arunram (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Object is of significance as it is one of the elaborate and intricate works on Buddhism in ivory. Inputs on this object have been provided by the museum's (arguably India's most prestigious museum) senior staff and department head Anamika Pathak. It was also covered as an object in the The Journal of Indian Art History Congress. The object is the central piece of the Gallery of Decorative arts in the National Museum. There is relatively little information in Wikipedia about Indian art and more specifically Ivory carvings which flourished as an art form for many years prior to the international ban on ivory. The challenge with most Indian art masterpieces is that there isn't formal name for the piece and is referred to by many names. The article was created as part of a WikipediaGLAM project with participation of senior museum staff with guidance from the departments. Some of you have also independently found mention of this object in sources. Other museums also have pages for some of their significant objects. I recommend we keep. Suggest we discuss and agree on a suitable name for the page/object. Arunram(talk) 03:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 February 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) 01:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stony

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

Non notable artist, fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources; the majority of hits are social networking. If someone finds Icelandic sources, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Icelandic sources added seem to satisfy the GNG. Would be nice to see some English-language sources, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. ///EuroCarGT 04:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, seems like improvements were made. ///EuroCarGT 03:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found and added two articles entirely about him in Icelandic national newspapers and one in a local weekly, satisfying WP:GNG. There may well be more. Better results searching on the Icelandic spelling, "Þorsteinn". Yngvadottir (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Yngvadottir. Only a weak keep as there are only two national newspapers, and I don't trust Google Translate enough to make a proper judgement on the level of coverage in said sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Lukeno94. Hafspajen (talk) 18:36, 11 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arasiyalla Ithellam Saatharanamappaa

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

No credible assertion signifying the notability of the article. No appropriate refs. Only one and that too to you tube (not allowed). Thus proposing its deletion under criteria A7. Might have nominated it for speedy deletion if it's category (television-related articles) was listed in A7. Also, the article seems to be a borderline advertisement, and is clearly written by a fan and thus is not written neutrally. Also it can be clearly seen that the article contains (in fact its based upon) original research. King Of The Wise (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unreferenced article, no indications of notability at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 17 February 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 delete under A7 by Sphilbrick (non-admin closure) ///EuroCarGT 03:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shishaldin

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

Totally non-notable person. Could have been A7-ed, but it's been here a while so we'll take this route. I looked but can't find anything even remotely reliable about this person; the "reference" given is a kind of press release. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Nothing out there, just a few blogs and non-RS material. The rest is related to the mountain. Fails WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Of course, per Peridon below. Someone trout me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability, and kudos to the good Doctor for doing this the right way. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, obviously. I'll get in line for a trout-slap. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Limited context, subject fails notability. ///EuroCarGT 04:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, ugh, looks like I need a trout slap as well. ///EuroCarGT 03:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm leaning toward deletion. I saw a few scattered mentions throughout blogs, such as BoingBoing.net. This article does seem to indicate that her wacky antics did catch the attention of bloggers back when she was a student, but I don't see any evidence of significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was entirely unhelpful. Drmies could have obviously A7'ed it himself; there was no reason to request speedy deletion in the middle of an open AfD. I have asked the deleting administrator User:Sphilbrick to restore the page, pending the result of this AfD. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just redirect to the mountain? Peridon (talk) 14:56, 11 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ölüm Savaşçısı (film)

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

No evidence of notability (GNG and WP:NFILM). Sources fail WP:RS . PROD was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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} 09:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Blast Chattanooga

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

This not my field in the least, but I am quite puzzled on what basis the references here show notability, since every one of them is a press release or based on a press release. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with over 1800 members for the 2013 con, one would expect some coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only available sources appear to be press releases sent to Anime News Network and local newspapers. Found one editorial and only one other article that barely mentions the con while talking about Anime. Esw01407 (talk) 03:40, 19 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Digital

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

Extraordinarily promotional article: the listing of every possible person in key people is diagnostic. I don't think there's enough notability to make rewriting appropriate. that the product is used in a niche role by major companies is not notability . That they received minor awards for being a rapidly growing start up is not notability -- if anything, it's more likely to mean not yet notable. Every one of the many references is simply one of the many press releases.

WP should not be used for the purpose of being another one. accepted from AfC , like so many similar articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer Society of Toronto

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

All of the refs are about the disease or its social effects, or are mere notices about events sponsored by the society.

National organizations of this sort are usually notable. Ones in individual cites never are -- at least I cannot remember one ever passing AfD.

Not just accepted at AfC , but given a B rating. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and go to Alzheimer Society of Canada. It does not have dependable references and they do not appear to exist.Whitescorp34 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raffy Cortina

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

student awards are not notability DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a blurb at MSN that names him "a Latino to watch". So far, though, it seems like his main claim to fame is the student award. I guess that means that maybe it's too soon. I don't have strong opinions about this, though. I thought there would be more coverage of him in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, but it's just awards lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:24, 9 February 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} 09:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Ipoh bus crash

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

there's a spike of coverage at the time of event, but 4 years later no WP:PERSISTENT coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting notability.--Charles (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no lasting notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:17, 11 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Fantastic Film Festivals Federation

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

fails WP:GNG. despite having an international focus, could find no coverage in major international sources like Reuters or BBC. Coverage I found merely confirms it exists or says it is affiliated with a notable other film festival. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Cult Cinema and Screen Daily. It gets tracked by Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, who report on the awards given to films. It's not super-notable, like Sundance, but it does get press coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

they are all film related sources, how about some coverage in mainstream press. The Hollywood reporter article is a 1 line mention. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a film-related topic; any coverage will be heavily slanted toward film-related sources, and there's nothing in the GNG that excludes trade press coverage. It's true that the last two links are rather trivial, but I included them to show that high-profile trade press track the organization and its awards. For smaller festivals and organizations, that kind of coverage does tend to be rather minimal, and the best you can usually hope for is a roundup of all the awards; however, not every festival or award gets reported on by these magazines. I've edited the article to make a stronger case for notability, but you're right that I'm not finding in-depth coverage at The New York Times or BBC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE . LibStar (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject may be notable but that this article is so promotional at this point that we are better off starting with a new and more neutral one if someone wants to create it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Rush

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

Hopelessly vapid and promotional article about a pair of musicians. There could be something to them, but if so, then WP:TNT is called for. Hoary (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed about the blatant advertising, but they have two songs that ranked on the Billboard charts and as mentioned on the article, they received a Lo Nuestro nomination. Erick (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May well be notable as mentioned above but this is a case for WP:TNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blow it away. Articles creators works are overly promotional, full of puffing and peacocking. Creator engages in account swapping to further their promotional intent. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing, delete their spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:05, 19 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erdolo Eromo

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

No indication why subject is important to be included as an encyclopedic content. Itsalleasy (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Itsalleasy - I don't see enough significance here. Sure, he played college basketball and has a few articles where we get first-hand info, but nothing unbiased and significant enough for inclusion here. Sorry. SayItRight1 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protea Glen Mall

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

No evidence of notability. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrd10 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently there is no "evidence of notability" in the article itself, but I see a slew of South Africa media reports on it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even just a couple of independent sources I found after a few seconds, one from the The Sowetan and one from the Parliament of South Africa, indicating significant coverage and passing WP:GNG. [64][65]--Oakshade (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 9 February 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:G11 slakr^\ talk / 14:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Scrace

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

Promotional article for a non-notable entertainer. Nothing in the article suggests that he satisfies either WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG, the cited sources are all self-published, and searching has failed to turn up any reliable secondary sources. Kolbasz (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 9 February 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 kept. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-ism

AfDs for this article:

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

In July 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-ism closed as delete. For some reason the page was not deleted as such; it was replaced with a soft redirect to Wiktionary. From December 2009 the page sort of grew into a DAB page, as various editors tacked 'See also' internal links under the soft redirect template. For a while the name redirected to Glossary of philosophy, then in 2011 the redirect was replaced by a DAB page. The current content is one of those odd half-DAB pages that combines definitions, internal links, and mentions of books or other ideas not currently treated on Wikipedia. Cnilep (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article history clarification - It was deleted on July 27th, 2009 following the AfD by the closer. It was recreated as a soft wiktionary redirect on August 23rd, 2009. At some later point in December 2009, another admin restored the deleted revisions that were hidden under the soft redirect. What happened after is laid out in the nom: editors added "See also" links, then it redirected to Glossary of philosophy, then was turnd into an actual DAB only to become what it now is. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nomination does not advance an argument for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a very small number of vocabulary/dictionary definition topics that pass muster in terms of GNG, but this is one of them. So-called "Isms" are a subject of scrutiny as a concrete subject — this was particularly true during the years of the Cold War. Carrite (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am certainly open to WP:WORDISSUBJECT articles, but the four books currently mentioned on this page don't appear to treat the suffix -ism in its own right. Descriptions I can find of the books describe them as follows: "theoretical and practical aspects of the major political and economic ideologies" (Todays ISMS); "lists them [453 Difficult Doctrines] all, and explains their salient features" (Isms and Ologies); "pocket-sized guide for gallery and museum lovers" (Isms: Understanding Art); and "brief definitions of key terms in philosophy" (The Ism Book). I'm not aware of substantial work on -ism as a suffix, not withstanding its use as a (often tongue-in-cheek) label for groups of theories or ideas in various fields. I don't see how an encyclopedic article can be constructed on this topic without substantial WP:SYNTHESIS. Cnilep (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient reasonable for an article as is, and more refs can be looked for. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was happy this article was here. just the "marked for deletion" thing was a bit off-putting. there's also the Dog eat dog track/album referring to Isms: http://www.discogs.com/Dog-Eat-Dog-Isms/master/28436 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.40.41 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twins Days

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Twins Days (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:V, not enough coverage on media Monni (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 09:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-known convention of twins. FWIW, I am a product of a multiple birth. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.[66][67][68][69] FWIW, I'm not a product of a multiple birth. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A subject of international press coverage ([70] and [71]), with a major claim of significance (see second link). Super Mario Man 05:31, 20 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:44, 25 February 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:G11 slakr^\ talk / 14:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Conference on Diversity

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

PRODded and REFUNDed, this article is a promotional piece for the subject and always has been. It was created by an account with the name of the organisation, and virtually no edits have been made by anybody with any contributions to any other article; even the REFUND request was made by a brand new user as their sole contribution to Wikipedia. It's been maintenance tagged with multiple issues since March 2012 and there's no sign of the issues being fixed. I don't see any credible evidence that anyone other than the subject is actually interested. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of work, but the sources provided about the organization demonstrate that the notability standard has been met. The article needs to be restructured, trimmed extensively, better-focused and written in a more neutral tone, but the organization's notability stands apart from these issues. Alansohn (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 14:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vasant Prabhu

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

Notability not established for almost 6 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was notability not established or were you incompetent to understand it? A music composer of 8 films would be notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kilo de merde

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

This is a one-sentence article, without sources, about a French card game. But the French Wikipedia version of this article is more substantial and has survived there since 2006; a preliminary Google search suggests that a few valid sources might exist in French. So I have moved this from PROD to AfD to give it greater scrutiny. I will try to look for sources and hope that others with more French-language facility might do the same, in particular to see if any of the apparent sources qualify as reliable ones. Arxiloxos (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 9 February 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/No consensus to delete. Nobody appears to favour deletion here. Should a merger still be sought this can be done on the article talk pages. Michig (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katharsis

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

Disambiguation page. Suggest merging with Catharsis (disambiguation); both pages deal with substantively the same topic (i.e. uses of the word "catharsis" other than in the context of catharsis itself). In my opinion, a single disambiguation page covering the union set of the two pages' current links would be more helpful to readers. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, neither page is very long, and the two spellings can easily be confused. older ≠ wiser 13:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coming from a search, a user is likely to have the first letter right, so redirecting them would be at least a little bit confusing. James^x12345 21:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am persuaded by Jamesx12345's point. Perhaps the current page could be re-written so that those looking for catharsis can be directed to it quicker, but there are users who are going to be looking for one of the articles pertaining to Katharsis (song, periodical, whatever) for whom this article is sensible. Bondegezou (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:12, 15 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGB Investigative Services

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Sources are trivial and or primary and thus fail WP:RS. This sounds like WP:SPAM. Article was previously tagged PROD with various maintenance tags. All were removed w/o explanation or improvement. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article's creator has left a message on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom that there aren't enough secondary sources to warrant notability in either guideline. Wieno (talk) 04:35, 9 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph & Co

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 27 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) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 9 February 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.