Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 April	15 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Chinese export recalls

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

This page is basically dead. This page has not been edited since it was created and it does not seem like it could be expanded upon. 173.24.165.50 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completing nomination for IP - no comment, for now, on the AFD itself. Stalwart111 03:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No useful information. It's basically a list with only one entry, which already has an article: 2008 Chinese heparin adulteration. -Zanhe (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although being "dead" according to the proposer's definition is not a valid reason for article deletion under Wikipedia guidelines, as Zanhe says - it's already covered elsewhere. If other product recalls come to light (which is unlikely given that this happened more than five years ago), the article can be resurrected. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 08:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Silverhawks

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

No evidence of notability, especially since they aren't part of any league Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nice logo! Too bad its for an organization that hasn't done anything yet. Someone could userfy if they want, if the organization ever plays any games. Or gets a roster. Or a coach.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Paul McDonald & that was funny! Fails WP:NHOCKEY & WP:NSPORTS. ///EuroCarGT 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally speedy=deleted this article as being non-notable. Rather than deleting it again I prefer that community consensus decide; the article appears unchanged from the version I deleted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly per WP:HAMMERTIME. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Symphony (software). (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony Developer Edition

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

Highly promotional in tone, and not notable on its own. If notable, it belongs in Symphony (software). However, very few of the cited references are third-party and unaffiliated, which makes me doubt its notability. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 01:10, 14 April 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, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively Merge to Symphony (software). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Symphony (software) - the independent refs either do not specifically mention the 'Developer Edition' or mention it incidentally, so notability is not sufficient for a separate article.Dialectric (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Dugré

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unsuccessful election candidate, which is not a claim of notability that gets a person past WP:POLITICIAN. The only other substantive assertion here is that he wrote one article in a magazine, which isn't enough to get him past WP:AUTHOR either. I'm willing to withdraw this if a stronger and better-sourced claim of notability can be made, but it's a delete in its current state. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails our notability guidelines for politicians and authors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a perenial candiate for office that rarely recieves over a single percentage point is a clear indicator of non-notability. Hasteur (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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