Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 December	1 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Çiljeta

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

Inadequately sourced BLP and I can't see anything reliable on a quick google search. Borderline A7 but its always better to get a consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Çiljeta is to Albania what would be, in popularity, something between Lady Gaga and Britney Spears to the United States. I am an Albanian and there is no one else in this list, that could match the popularity of Çiljeta among young generations. Sources would be less for Çiljeta than for Lady Gaga, yes, but the nominator hurried too much to send this for deletion, as he can see lots of googlehits. Also with a quick search he could have found that the article is in the Albanian, Swedish, and Polish wikipedias already (since 2007, 2010, and 2008 respectively). Tagging for sources would have been a better solution. In the meanwhile I worked to improve sourcing of the article, and hopefully the article will be kept. --Asgjestefalihuaji (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would suggest to keep the article, but for sure it needs improvements. The person is a former model - singer - showgirl, always surrounded by paparazzi. Somehow a mini - Kardashian projected in the Albanian environment, but with less gossip and controversies. I think it is fine if she has an article, google hits can show that we are talking about an Albanian celebrity.

Meanwhile this Linda Spahiu below should go, I don't know who she is, what she does, etc...but looks like they are visualizing Wikipedia as a promotion tool.

My deep sorrow and disapproval goes towards many of the Albanian "wikipedians", which instead of adding or improving articles about prominent historical figures and events, focus on superficial material and topics.Mondiad (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much of the content is not sourced, and I found nothing that proved the unsourced content. The article is nearly crossing A1, A7, and A9. TheTriple M 19:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might help to have comments from unaffiliated people who speak Polish and Albanian so that we could analyse the sources on those Wikipedias' articles. Note that the Swedish article was deleted several years ago. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no the artcle in the swedish wiki is still there.[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B021:8214:C08D:2246:AA8E:DA35 (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction; the link had gone to sv:Çiljeta Xhilaga, which was deleted in 2007. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't see for the life of me what the problem is. I'm seeing an article with a number of sources to the media which satisfy the GNG. Mondiad's disapproval aside, there is nothing in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines enjoining the creation of otherwise-qualifying articles on subjects some might consider insufficiently weighty. Ravenswing 22:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and addressing Ravenswing's concern. The articles are not non-trivial which is what both GNG and MUSICBIO required. They're often two paragraphs long. I was ready to vote keep based on the number of references present, but when I clicked through I saw the fluff save http://zhurnal.mk/content/?id=1312916334427. That convinced me to vote delete. If she continues to make anti-Greek statements, she may achieve GNG though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:GNG satisfied by the many sources that are available for her. I like the Kardashian comparison of Mondiad, and if Kim is notable so should Ciljeta, who, on top of existing, sings. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will i ever get married

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

The article is unencyclopedic. Z. Patterson (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Yes, and that's why I put it up for speedy deletion before you made this AfD. This isn't worth wasting seven days worth of a discussion, because it's obviously vandalism. That's why I've re-added my nomination. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Lugia. An AFD for this article is a waste of space. GSK ✉ ✓ 21:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonjia Miles

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

Article does not really assert notability, and if it did, doesn't really show notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any evidence of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find much other than the source already cited in the article, which only contains the briefest of mentions. --Michig (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: A7 for failure to assert a reason for notability. Seems simply promotional, and represents the sole Wikipedia activity of the article creator. Ravenswing 22:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not demonstrated or clearly claimed. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 3 I am relisting this article that was previously deleted at AFD for a fresh consensus. The article was recreated and deleted per G4 but was not sufficiently identical. As the DRV closer I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the links for the JA reviews. I'd be more leery of their reviews since they sell games, but considering that these are freeware and not offered from the website as far as I can see, I think that they would be OK. I know that reviews from JA have been accepted as RS in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The reviews are pretty much solely from two websites: Adventure Gamers and Just Adventure. Both are sites that have an editorial board go over their articles and reviews, so they would pass the RS guideline as far as I know- although I am slightly leery of JA. It did win at least one AGS award, which is probably one of the biggest awards in the "point and click" gaming world right now. That mixed together is just enough to where I'd say that this passes notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reception section and two IndieGames awards. Besides, improves our coverage of reviewed freeware video games. Brandmeister^talk 12:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. All of the sources listed in the article are listed at WP:WikiProject_Video_games/sources as notable and verifiable sources (Adventure Gamers, Just Adventure, PC Zone, 1UP.com, PC Gamer (UK), Rock, Paper, Shotgun, IndieGames.com, and GameSetWatch). Adventure Gamers called it "a popular and critically acclaimed series of amateur adventures", 1UP.com named it one of "the best games that money can't buy", PC Gamers listed it in their Year of Games feature, and IndieGames.com gave it two best of freeware games awards. Plus, as the article has been updated to show, it won many Adventure Game Studio awards (which, as shown in the article, are covered by Adventure Gamers, GameSetWatch, and IndieGames.com, which as shown above, are all Wikiproject approved reliable sources). That makes it meet the first criteria for WP:Notability_(software) as "the software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." In addition, it was reviewed by PC Gamer (UK) magazine, Adventure Gamers, and Just Adventure, which are all Wikiproject approved reliable sources. This makes it also meet the third criteria of WP:Notability_(software) as "The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." JenniBees (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2013 (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) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article had passing coverage and reviews, but not significant coverage. Adventure Game Studio awards are not significant in their field, and are limited to games created using the Adventure Game Studio software, which itself is not significant in its field. Significance and notability are different, although the first is a component of the second. Overall the coverage for this game was too minor to merit an article, it should be merged or deleted altogether. It barely merits notice in the larger field of video games, adventure games, what have you. Andrevan@ 04:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:SPAM, oft-recreated article about utterly non-notable online freeware game, created by an account with an apparent interest in promoting the game. The smattering of routine blog reviews and an extremely obscure award (only offered to games made with a particular software) are again foisted upon us as supposed proof of notability--on the contrary, the continued weakness of sources and utter lack of anything resembling mainstream recognition and coverage AFTER OVER NINE YEARS strongly confirms that this wasn't notable, isn't notable now, and barring some complete miracle, isn't going to become notable in future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game seems to have substantial reviews so, if the review sources are suitable, the notability criteria seem to have been met. The relevant WikiProject seems to regard the sources as independent and reliable (thanks to JenniBees for guiding me there) and I have no reason to doubt this. So, given we may presume an article is merited, is this article suitable for keeping? Yes it is, because it is pretty well written and referenced. Thincat (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Tough call on this one. Some of the sources do not really provide significant coverage in describing the game or offering any particular on it. However, the numerous, repeated awards for this freeware series and coverage in independent and reliable sources (specifically [2] and the JustAdventure reviews) amongst the other coverage pushes me to retain this article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. On the basis that the nomination has been withdrawn and all of the Delete !votes are now moot since Timor-Leste has a confirmed competitor. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timor-Leste at the 2014 Winter Olympics

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

The most recent quota list for skiing ([3]) does not list Timor-Leste as having qualified. Delete or redirect to 2014 Winter Olympics until if and when Timor-Leste is listed on the quota list. Smartyllama (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For what its worth on the official facebook page of the said athlete [4] he writes "I am Qualifie for the Winter olympic games thx for all your support love you !!!" Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and other social media are not reliable sources, generally speaking. None of the sources in the article indicate he has actually qualified, only that he is trying to do so. Smartyllama (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is all a little WP:TOOSOON for an entry just yet. Let's let some official stuff come out first and then we can think about re-adding it. In the meantime we could possibly mention this on the main entry for the country, maybe, but until we have more official confirmation about all of this, it just seems a little premature. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Interesting perhaps for WP:DYK (if it's true), but I agree with Tokyogirl79 that a separate article on this is too soon. I'm sure the relevant info about their participation can go on East Timor for the time being. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not problem having it recreated if he does actually compete. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Quite aside from that anyone with a minimal grounding in athletics can think of hundreds of examples where an athlete or a team has been considered a shoo-in for a victory or honor they didn't actually achieve, the sources make it clear that the athlete in question hasn't actually qualified for the Olympics. How about we don't write articles about what happens at the Olympics until, well, the Olympics actually happen? Ravenswing 22:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we keep the page until the FIS releases their next points list (probably Friday). In my opinion they made a mistake not including the athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD will probably run until Monday, so you'll get a good chance to wait until then. Now something you might want to look into as an alternative is to ask for a copy of the article to get transferred into your WP:USERSPACE, where you can work on showing notability until the point comes where it is no longer WP:CRYSTAL and notability is easily asserted to where it'd merit a mention aside from the main country's article. Until we get that official statement from the Olympics committee that the country is going to be participating in the winter Olympics, it's all conjecture. Someone can seem likely to qualify but not actually make it. It's unfortunate that we can't rely on someone's word, but we have no way of guaranteeing that the athlete was genuinely talking about qualifying. It could've been a joke or a way of trying to get attention and make it more likely to qualify. Other people have tried this with various things before, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article from today [5] confirms the athlete has indeed qualified for Sochi. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the FIS officially here does not show him meeting either the a or b standard, missing the b standard by .44 of a point. Tomorrow there will likely be a new list but how could he even be on it if has not met qualification standards? The tongan page was redirected until it was actually true so we were not promoting fraudulent information, don't know if that is an option.18abruce (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take his five best slalom results and add up the points then divide by 5 he is below the standard. I did this before the last two lists were released and he had 140.44 points but with the addition of the race on December 20, he goes below the magic number of 140. So a) the FIS made a mistake or b) a race did not count? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the numbers as you say, and you are right, tomorrow's lists should place him in the olympics. I guess we will see.18abruce (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A new flag will grace the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Sochi in February. For the first time in the history of the Games, the colours of East Timor will be carried with pride by a competing athlete.

That athlete is Yohan Goutt Goncalves, who, at 19 years of age, has achieved his seemingly impossible dream of qualifying for the Olympics on behalf of the tiny Southeast Asian nation that only became an independent country in 2002.

The French-born skier secured his place at the world’s biggest winter sports spectacle in Serbia on December 29, where he achieved the minimum 140 points required by the International Ski Federation to compete in the slalom event at Sochi. He also hopes to qualify for the giant slalom in the coming weeks." [6] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC

we need to use the official quota list. That being said, I suggest we keep this open until the list is released later today. If he is on it, we should keep this article. If not, we should delete or redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new official quota list at [7] shows Timor-Leste with a quota. If there is no objection, I am withdrawing this AFD as now we have reliable sources saying he has qualified. Smartyllama (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smartyllama. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Banahan

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

He's clearly successful, but I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see what criteria of WP:ARTIST he fulfills. The source for many of his "honors" and "exhibitions" is his own CV from his own website, which of course doesn't constitute an independent source. Ravenswing 22:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I would be kind enough to say not notable enough yet, he has only one painting at most in a public collection and there's little online news coverage about him and his work. The best I could find were some brief mentions in his local paper. He makes no great claim to notability himself. Sionk (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Türker Armaner

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY as meeting WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. However, the language issue may well mean I'm missing something. Has been tagged for notability for 6 years - hopefully a discussion will fully resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The ref cited in article is a long signed review of his book in the online version of a major Turkish newspaper: google translation. I assume the other books will have similar reviews. These other books can be verified in Worldcat--that any US library has holdings shows them of some significance, considering the near-total neglect of Turkish studies in the US. The books are fiction, so his notability would be as an author, not a professor. His thesis too can be verified, and I added the link to the article. I can not see any reason why one would challenge an article of this nature, one with a good reference. An author whose works could not be verified would be another matter. There are many presumably notable non-European writers where that is the case, and our inability to write sustainable articles on them because of referencing problems is a significant & unfortunate cultural bias. When we can do as well as this, we're doing fine. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's additions and persuasive reasoning based on his expertise as a librarian. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - pleas close AfD based on 2 comments above. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Awesome Katy

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

~~Probable 'garden variety false future Disney Channel show'~~ Proposed Disney Channel pilot still deep in development with few sources to it near going to series to be found. I've only brought this to AfD as WP:SPEEDY was declined due to malformed reasoning and the WP:PROD was blanked, so an AfD must be done by rule. Nate • (chatter) 18:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The pilot for this hasn't even filmed yet and the thing about proposed shows is that things fall through all the time. Having an article is extremely premature. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad you were able to find a source for the show; however will still stand by a deletion as it's still only in the pilot stage and that title probably won't even get to the shooting pilot, much less on-air. Nate • (chatter) 21:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of my opinion as well. Titles frequently change and there's really no good redirect target. We don't have a section for upcoming or cancelled Disney pilots, probably because there's always so many of them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too soon. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ju-Chin Chu

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

Does not meet WP:PROF Josh3580_talk/hist 18:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)."--HNAKXR (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep although more information would be desirable there is enough to show unequivocal notability . (I assume the nominator wasn't aware of the provisions of WP:PROF, and was not unreasonable reacting to the extreme brevity of the article) DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His academic work is from an early enough time that I don't think we can rely on Google Scholar citation counts for any useful information, but Academia Sinica is enough by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Academica Sinica. --Randykitty (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though references to his work may be more difficult to dig up. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hofstadter Insufficiency

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

Page seems pointless and irrelevant to the Big Bang Theory series, since the episode had nothing that stood out from the others. I'm not there. Message me! 18:12, 31 December 2013 (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/2013 December 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nominator does not advance a sufficient rationale for deletion. The content of the episode has no relevance to whether the article should be deleted or not. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination makes no policy-based argument and is even false in its own terms as the episode obviously had something different - an absence of Leonard, as the reviews state. Andrew (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to NSA ANT catalog. In accordance with the below discussion, I have also deleted FIREWALKER as it has been deemed to be a mistaken title for FIREWALK. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIREWALKER

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

Article about a seemingly non-existent technology. No mention of the subject in any reliable sources. Possibly a hoax. - Mr X 18:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't seem to actually exist as far as I can tell. The only source is a rather dodgy blog and I can't really find coverage to show that this specific term was actually a used term. Even if it was, a specific codeword wouldn't be noteworthy enough to pass GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The product isn't "FIREWALKER", it's "FIREWALK". I do see coverage for it, but I need further inspection, since it appears "firewalk" was already a name for some network hacking tool mentioned alongside of traceroute in an article by Cisco. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the article accordingly.- Mr X 17:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no rs. not a notable subject. per tokiogirl Dloh cierekim 00:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to NSA ANT catalog - It seems the catalog itself is notable, but I doubt the individual "products" are, at least now.- Mr X 14:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect after title change per MrX. I've now done my research and find no direct, non-trivial focus on this product, but the redirect would be useful. However, FIREWALKER isn't the name of the product. It's FIREWALK. Therefore, whatever the outcome of this discussion, not having a FIREWALKER article should be part of it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge to NSA ANT catalog. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RAGEMASTER

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

Article about a ~~seemingly non-existent~~ technology. No mention of the subject in any reliable sources. ~~Possibly a hoax.~~ - Mr X 18:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I struck some comments that have been revealed not to be true. I'm still not sure that the coverage of this "product" in reliable sources is deep enough to merit a separate article, keeping in mind that there are ~50 such products and, with the exception of DROOPOUTJEEP, and a couple of others, detailed media coverage has been sparse. Of course, we have the primary source of the actual catalog that was leaked.- Mr X 13:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the complete lack of coverage, I'd say it's a delete on my end. The blog isn't exactly a good source and while the article asserts other sources, they don't seem to actually exist. Even if it does exist, we don't need an entry on every single codeword ever used by the NSA. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was covered by ABC News, during a slow holiday news period, and if you don't hear about it now, you'll probably hear about it in the media in January when everyone gets back to their news desks. It's a big deal. It's already starting to pick up a wave of attention as a significant highlight of respected security researcher Jacob Applebaum's keynote. And I would argue that it deserves a separate article because it stands out as distinctively different in its hacking approach to everything else revealed to date in the Snowden papers. The relevant NSA Powerpoints very much exist and so does the technology. I have added the relevant ABC News cite. CharlesSearch (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link directly to a news source that uses the word RAGEMASTER and NSA?- Mr X 19:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you show where the specific list items are notable as opposed to the list as a whole? The thing about leaked materials of this nature is that the specifics on the list rarely get attention: it's always the list as a whole that gets the attention. For example, WikiLeaks leaked several documents as a whole, but very, very few of those documents in specific are notable for their own entry. You have to have an extremely large amount of coverage to merit an article for a specific element of a leaked document. You might be able to gain enough coverage to merit an entry for the list as a whole, whether it proves to be real or not, but I doubt very seriously that you can get coverage for individual items. Even if they exist, existing is not notability, nor is notability inherited by the possible notability of the list or the definite notability of the NSA. We don't collect information on every thing that's out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It's a big deal", etc. Wikipedia doesn't directly assess the importance of things. It relies on whether others have made that assessment, by virtue of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Therefore, it won't help to make your own argument as to why RAGEMASTER is important. "... you'll probably hear about it in the media in January ...." If so, then it will have met Wikipedia's notability threshold and it will make sense to have an article about it. But for now, WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It isn't mentioned in the ABC News source that was cited. In the one source where it appears (someone's blog), there is no coverage per se. There is just a purported spec sheet for the product, included among dozens of others. I can't even figure out why this one product, occurring near the bottom, would have caught the eye of the article's creator more than any of the others. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding the lack of coverage, these days most computer monitors are connected via digital DVI or HDMI, making this 'hack' completely useless with all but the oldest computers which certainly aren't NSA-certified in any way. Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is covered in several sources including Fortune (magazine). And it's supposed to be a Top secret device, which explains the lack of detail since nobody knows much about it. May also meet Wikipedia's criteria for Inherent notability -A1candidate (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's the first useful source I've seen. At least now we know this isn't a hoax. I will look into this further and see if there are other sources (it appears there are) so that this article can be kept.- Mr X 13:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MrX, this covers verifiability. But not, at least by itself, notability. What's notable is that there's a 50-page catalog, perhaps, but it appears that they arbitrarily chose a few examples from the catalog to illustrate its contents. There's no obvious focus on the Ragemaster, nothing more than a one-liner about what it is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to NSA ANT catalog - It seems the catalog itself is notable, but I doubt the individual "products" are, at least now.- Mr X 14:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect Based on my earlier comments and MrX's observation that NSA ANT catalog exists, I agree. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage is increasing, as CharlesSearch suggested. See here and here. groupuscule (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Society for Palestinian Iraqi Refugees Emergency

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

blatantly fails WP:ORG. Not one hit in Australian search engine trove [8]

Also nominating the organisation's founder Yousef Alreemawi created by the same user (who has only edited 3 articles which I suspect some self promotion here) . He fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found a mention of them in a couple far-left papers, such as this and this. Not sure if these sources are reliable enough to extend to notability in this case though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Articles fail WP:GNG. A blatant attempt at self promotion. Finnegas (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The presented evidence indicates that this article meets our notability requirements. Any renaming that needs to be done can happen outside of this venue. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wet Confetti

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Only actual ref is on Reporter, a connected band, who don't have an article. Seems like promotion by WP:Single-purpose account. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible sources: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (this one is important), [18]. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rename/redirect to "Reporter (band)" based on the sources that 78.26 provided and a Google search that I ran. The band has been around since 2000 (per their own website) and seem to have generated a fair amount of buzz as Wet Confetti, then broke up in 2007, but then the same musicians re-formed as Reporter. They also appear to be on a more notable label now. There's a fair bit of coverage for both bands but not enough that each warrants its own page. Coverage seems to be limited to publications close to their home town. I don't know that any are major publications, but I think there is enough depth of coverage to claim notability. It's slim. Ivanvector (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a redirect would not be possible (Reporter (band) does not exist) but a rename or creation could occur. Boleyn (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant. Rename this page, but also make a redirect at Wet Confetti because it's a reasonable search term. Ivanvector (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, should the article be re-named? It seems the band received more press coverage as Wet Confetti, but signed to a more notable band as Reporter. Which should trump? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the band dissolved as Wet Confetti and then re-formed as Reporter with exactly the same members, this is essentially one band that went through a name change and switched labels, not two separate bands. I think the article should be under their current name, while explaining that they formed as Wet Confetti. Ivanvector (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate coverage to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to satisfy any one of the criteria for WP:BAND DocumentError (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by 78.26 are some of the sources that make it notable; however, the article just excludes the sources. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 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, Courcelles 17:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename As has been noted, there are sufficient refs to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and probably rename) – 78.26 has already identified enough coverage for the subject to meet WP:NMUSIC criterion #1. Other sources include "The Anti-Hit List" by John Sakamoto, Toronto Star 11 Nov 2006: H11. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoSynthesis Productions

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

Local video production company with little to no signs of notability. Several of the citations link to sites that make no mention of this organization. Claims of awards, or of collaborations with notable companies (such as National Geographic) are not verified by given sources and cannot be verified through searches. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or a telephone list for every single company or organization. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Relisting has served its purpose here, as it is now apparent that the article meets our notability requirements. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2-Carbomethoxytropinone

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

No references so unverifiable and also can't verify notability Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I failed to find any coverage which would sustain its verifiability, article seems to be major POV and OR. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The GScholar results seem to go some way towards establishing notability, and even literally verify much of the article - in the sense that the article creator seems to have taken phrases from several relevant Google snippets. Unfortunately, I am far from convinced that the article creator had any meaningful idea of what they were writing about. I think there may be a decent article to be written here, but I will certainly concede that this is not remotely it. PWilkinson (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2-Carbomethoxy-3-tropinone, the more commonly used name from which it is easy to establish notability. I also went ahead and deleted the copy-paste synthesis text, made it into a perfectly acceptable stub, and will probably add 2-3 more lines later.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This chemical compound is certainly used as an intermediate in the preparation of notable compounds (cocaine and its analogs in particular) and considering that this compound is commercially available from multiple vendors (suggesting its utility) I suspect notability could be established. At the moment, however, the article content is insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there is now enough to warrant inclusion of this article. I suspect there has been research from the late 1800s-1930s on the best ways to synthesize 2-CMT, but I haven't looked into it. Either way as the only known precursor to cocaine and the cocaine analogs I feel it meets the WP:GNG.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additions to the article. I think the article content now sufficiently demonstrates that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now a decent stub article with multiple sources showing it meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or rename as suggested by AioftheStorm above. This is clearly a notable compound. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly a notable compound. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fascinating compound with notable uses and notable history. It would be good to know exactly what searches failed to find any coverage which would sustain its verifiability, but the refs are there now so obviously someone found this coverage. Andrewa (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afkari

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

No references so unverifiable and also can't verify notability Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, no notability or verifiability to sustain its maintainability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Beall

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

No real assertion of notability in the article itself, and the cited links appear to be self-promotional sites. Unless notability otherwise established, delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence at all of notability, let alone against anything in WP:ARTIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilgongo (talk • contribs) 17:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find sourced coverage of various people named Matthew Beall, but of this one the nearest to substantial is this blog interview. Fails WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricelm-Lei Millere

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

Of the sources provided (that aren't en-wiki articles) that mention this person, there is a blog, a facebook page, and a very passing mention [19]. A Google search reveals nothing of substance in reliable sources.

Also, Hashim Nzinga is in very similar shape, but he seems to have had some coverage, but it might be a case of WP:BLP1E. Chris857 (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, vanity article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sourcing is pretty weak, primarily being other Wikipedia articles, Facebook, and blogs of unclear notability. I do not believe he meets WP:BIO at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The valid arguments for the removal of this article are found to fall under WP:IINFO. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of autumn flowers

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

Topic too vuage (autumn in northern Canada or autumn in the Australian outback) and likely to be too large for a list (1000s upon 1000s of plants), uncited --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 16:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN as gardeners have documented such varieties to assist them in ensuring a supply of blooms throughout the year. See Flora historica, for example. The potential size of the list is unimportant per WP:NOTPAPER — note that the more general list of plants is a blue link. Andrew (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list needs to be much more specific if it's going to be of any use to gardeners, or to Wikipedia. The link that Andrew gives above shows one possible article, List of flowers that bloom in autumn in the United Kingdom. It's likely that most flowers bloom in Autumn somewhere in the world, even if it's in a nursery or greenhouse where flowers are artificially prompted to bloom at nearly all times. Does this list include trees, perennials, annuals, shrubs, subshrubs, grasses, ferns, and conifers? This list is far too indiscriminate to ever be meaningful or helpful. First Light (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is too general to be addressed meaningfully. Lists of plants by flowering time with a regional focus (e.g. United Kingdom, or Eastern US) might work, but even then there is significant variation by latitude and elevation in flowering times. The seasonal focus is also problematic. When does autumn start? After the autumnal equinox? At the beginning of September (in the Northern Hemisphere), as defined in the parent category for this list, Category:Flowering dates? Does autumn start at the same time in both Anchorage and Miami? There's been some previous discussion about deleting related lists at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive60#PROD_for_List_of_early_spring_flowers.2C_List_of_late_spring_flowers. Wikipedia is not very well suited to handling the variables that affect bloom dates. A more appropriate place to develop this content is [Wikiversity's Bloom Clock page]. Plantdrew (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Plantdrew as so general as to be meaningless - also, unsourced, and difficult to source, list. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 United Tournament

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

This was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Tournament but challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_December_21. The result of the discussion was to relist the 'year' articles to obtain a clearer consensus. As the DRV closer, my role is procedural so I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The tournaments are notable. The 2014 one was recently nominated for deletion in the Russian Wikipedia and was kept. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I !voted to relist at the deletion review. After viewing both articles now, I believe that we should keep it, because it seems to have press coverage each year, and it makes sense to have articles about each year's tournament. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with United Tournament, which is ideally what should have been done after the last AFD. There is no evidence that the tournament is notable enough to merit an article for every single annual edition. Also the Russian Wikipedia notability issue is wholly irrelevant here. GiantSnowman 13:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Russian Wikipedia notability issue is relevant cause it is logical that people who can read Russian know better than people in the English Wikipedia. People in the Russian Wikipedia checked whether there was enough coverage of the tournaments, and there was. I'm telling you that there is enough coverage. If you can read Russian, look at the Yandex News Search results: [20]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Russian and if you know the context of the tournament then you will know the tournament is very notable and carries more weight than the Premier League Asia Trophy which is a tournament which has articles about seasons. 2.125.165.111 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable tournament with big media coverage in Russian/Ukrainian media with special sections/tags in it: [21] [22] [23] [24]. Attempt to create the United Russia-Ukraine league in future. NickSt (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable tournament with huge coverage and a lot of importance in the context of Russian-Ukrainian football. More important than the Premier League Asia Trophy that's fore sure, because the United Tournament comes in the context of uniting the championships. 2.125.165.111 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xit-Group

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

This seems to be a smallish company with even smaller significance. I seriously doubt anyone will be able to find independent reliable sources on it. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A firm going about its business, but all I can see is routine product listings. No evidence of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Gray

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

WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:ENT (one notable role) and WP:GNG (lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources). SummerPhD (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ENT and WP:GNG... Sources in the article included IMDb, which is never reliable, and a source closely related to the subject.LM2000 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The subject lacks coverage by reliable sources. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Derby (cricket)

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

fails WP:NRIVALRY. No third party sources provided only sources are cricket scores. Not sure how a rivalry can be established in 4 games. Also nominating for same reasons:

Sydney Derby (cricket) LibStar (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage even in English newspapers.[25][26] St Anselm (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the 2nd source is not WP:INDEPTH , a mere one line mention. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think this article should be nominated for deletion. As far I'm concerned, this article is worth it's presence in Wikipedia. The Hyundai A-League Melbourne Derby article is also present in Wikipedia. And that soccer derby is equally popular in terms of crowd attendance. Rather this cricket derby is more popular in terms of TV ratings. So I don't think it should be deleted. And yes it has been getting significant coverage even in the English media. And this season of Big Bash League, it has become much more popular in terms of TV ratings. This December, the cricket Melbourne derby got TV ratings in Australia 10 times more than that of the soccer Melbourne derby. Interestingly those two derbies were played in a gap of two days. Check this reference newspaper link. The word 'Melbourne Derby' is mentioned there if you don't believe^[1] Itz arka (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the gap of 2 days is irrelevant to notability, the fact that another derby exists in soccer is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Also you should not remove the AfD tag in a desperate attempt to keep the article as you did here. LibStar (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

today the second Melbourne derby of the season witnessed a record cricket crowd of 42,837 at the Docklands Stadium beating the previous record of 38,000 of an ODI of Australia and South Africa a few years ago. Can't the decision of deletion be thought about again? It's really making news and getting coverage. Itz arka (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

42,000 whilst seems large is not unusual for sport in Melbourne. 91,000 was at the Ashes test. In Melbourne, over 25 times a year you can get crowds greater than 50,000 for AFL.. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a record (which means it IS unusually large) for all cricket (including internationals) at the stadium, and their match last year at the MCG set the record for domestic T20 cricket.The-Pope (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a record for Melbourne, as the Melbourne Cricket Ground is the city's premier cricket venue. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the Melbourne record for a T20 (international) match is 62,000 at the MCG, [27] in 2009. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it was an all-Melbourne record. The football record is 121,000. What's your point? As we said, the derby holds records for all cricket at the stated ground, and a national record for domestic T20 cricket. Please try to use indentations correctly. The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But to someone not familiar with Melbourne it can seem a Melbourne record. The point is it is implied it beat an international record but that is only for that stadium which is not the premier cricket venue. LibStar (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it is record for everything. I said its a record for all cricket matches played in Docklands Stadium where the maximum cricket crowd capacity is 52,000. So you can't expect the crowd in Docklands to be 91,000 like that in MCG. First know it properly that the match wasn't played at MCG. It was played in Docklands. Read my replies properly... Itz arka (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you said it beat an international record but that is for a smaller stadium. when most international games are placed at MCG not docklands. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact whether anyone is familiar with Melbourne crowd or not is not the fact. And calling Docklands not a premier ground is not the point. Here Australia played against South Africa in international One Day match. Australia played against the World XI here long ago. So the premiership of this ground doesn't relate to the deletion of this article. The 'Sydney Derby' should be deleted, but not the 'Melbourne Derby' as it has significant coverage. You can Google about this 'Melbourne Derby' and check the news feeds so that you can see whether it has a significant coverage or not Itz arka (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a keep !voter the onus is on you to provide sources. See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Please provide. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Almost entirely unreferenced, giving the impression of OR, and certainly not notable enough for an article at this point. Harrias ^talk 09:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are plenty of mentions of the name "Melbourne Derby" in routine coverage of the matches but there doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the rivalry itself, meaning it fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced by its notability and I can't seem to find too much in the way of significant coverage. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NRIVALRY. Can't find any significant coverage.Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this derby holds the attendance records for cricket at Etihad Stadium (even exceeding international games) and the overall domestic T20 game. Articles like this refers to the results of the derbies for the year (but interestingly, not the positions of each team points table). I believe that this also qualifies it under WP:NEVENT, not just WP:NRIVALRY. foster cross-town rivalry, importance of cultivating a cross-town rivalry, rivalry in terms of when we go out to play against each other is 100 per cent real, short but fierce rivalry. The-Pope (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this article is written several months before they played their first match so crystal balls a rivalry. this article mentions rivalry in one line but is primarily about the financial viability of the renegades and not their relationship with the Melbourne Stars. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sum of many small parts = the whole. Crystal balls can come true sometimes. Virtually every match report or pre-game build up article refers to them as "cross town rivals". It's almost sky is blue stuff. And it's an WP:EVENT too. The-Pope (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aren't match reports WP:ROUTINE coverage? My other concern is that this is not long standing (5 games) not like the Bledisloe Cup, the Ashes, State of Origin series.LibStar (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, I vote for this article to be kept intact. It is making news this season and receiving good response from the Australian public. And don't know why this Herald Sun link is not being taken by Wikipedia (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cricket/melbourne-derby-sets-new-etihad-stadium-crowd-record-as-bbl-reaches-new-heights/story-fn6w5lwh-1226795071340) Royalisha103 (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how did you find this article with no prior edits? LibStar (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Royalisha103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

note to closing admin please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itz arka/Archive regarding above user. LibStar (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royalisha is a confirmed sockpuppet of Itz Arka. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As an avid Renegades fan and regular Big Bash attendee, I can tell you this rivalry is alive and well. I've attended every derby bar the first and at the second derby last year I and many other Renegades fans found ourselves booing Shane Warne. He is an Australian cricketing legend and a Victorian and we were booing him. If this doesn't speak magnitudes I don't know what else will. Does Wikipedia have a page limit or do people just get bored sometimes and nominate pages for deletion without any real and valid reason? Was the Melbourne Derby soccer page nominated for deletion at the same time because it had only been contested 4 times? The Herald Sun and The Age have always called this the Melbourne Derby as well as both teams. If this page is deleted it is an injustice. It's things like these that bring Wikipedia down. People are trying to supply information in the one place about an event that occurs in a city and people are trying to take it down. What a joke. Millsy29 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IKNOWIT are not reasons for keeping. Nor is a supposed injustice if the page is deleted (which all it does is really describe the results of 5 games) If booing Shane Warne is somehow a criterion for notability, that speaks magnitudes of the quality of sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are poeople that bored? I honestly don't understand why you would remove a page from Wikipedia for any other reason. This is a legitimate rivalry which has been mentioned a countless number of times across all media. There are two videos on YouTube where each side discusses their thoughts on the rivalry. This shows first-hand that it's real. Millsy29 (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing to do with being bored, Wikipedia has notability guidelines see WP:N. If it was automatically notable, everyone here would vote keep which is not the case. You have failed to provide one web link of sources. Instead saying WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not contain any references to establish notability, and I don't think that those provided above demonstrate that this is a notable rivalry: all professional sports games receive this kind of coverage as a matter of course. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am undecided as to whether this should be deleted or kept. Arguments for it to be kept include the very strong crowds these games attract (by far the highest crowds in each given year) and some fiery and memorable games being played (eg Warne vs Samuels in 2012-13). However, a true sporting rivalry can not be created instantly. It takes many years for this to occur. If this page (and Sydney Derby (cricket) does get deleted, I strongly feel that similar Australian sporting rivalry pages also need to be addressed, for exactly the same reason. These include Melbourne Derby (A-League), Sydney Derby (A-League), Battle of the Bridge (AFL) and QClash. Roboh11 (talk) 9:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment I note no one has argued for retention of Sydney Derby (cricket). LibStar (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the Melbourne Derby is much more defensible at the moment, since the Sydney Thunder have performed so badly in their first few years, whereas the Melbourne teams have been more even. This may of course change in coming years. Roboh11 (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article still fails to address the rivalry in any great detail, let alone provide evidence of an actual rivalry. Not sure how that's defensible. Hack (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly OddParents shorts

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

Completely unsourced for over four years. I am also nominating The Fairly OddParents (season 1), The Fairly OddParents (season 2), The Fairly OddParents (season 3), The Fairly OddParents (season 4), The Fairly OddParents (season 5). Finealt (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Nomination is malformed and inconsistent (only nominating half the series?) as the template hasn't been placed on the season articles nor has this multiple-nom been formed correctly, and common that most animated series have episode guides by season and an 'all-in-one' episode article would be clumsy to navigate. Probable that sources exist for the entire run of the series and this should be hashed out on the talk page or with the most consistent editors. Nate • (chatter) 18:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Completely unsourced" isn't a good argument for deletion, per WP:MUST. This should be worked out on the talk page as Nate suggests.LM2000 (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Series itself passes WP:GNG. If the articles are unsourced, an AfD is not the solution -- gathering sources is. See WP:DOITYOURSELF. Also see WP:DEL#REASON - this article does not meet any of the reasons for deletion. Antoshi ☏ ★ 20:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No compelling, policy-backed argument for the inclusion of this article has been made. Furthermore, there was no weight given to the sock creating this discussion, as valid arguments regarding the notability of this topic have been made by plenty of editors in good-standing. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Vedism

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

This whole sensitive article is constructed on a mere of 7 refrences out of just 5 are working. the article seems to intermingle slavic rodnovery and hindu vedic religion with out proper sources. it also indirectly trys to establish the supremacy of hindu vedism that slavic paganism was in fact a branch of vedic religion by stating that hindu idol vishnu was found in volga dating back many centuries which is entirely unsourced. the article seems to be a bunch of fringe theories. Agragora (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I originally left the comment at the talk page of the article. The article severely lacks reliable sources, most of its statement have no sources at all. Identification of rodnoveriye, which was made up by a group of Russian ultra-nationalists in the 1990s, with vedism is original research. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Informative article, needs just more research, I just added few reliable sources, so Ymblanter must think again. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You added - where? You have zero edits in the history of the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see not that you added a couple of sources, and I remain at delete. To start with, we should decide what the article can be about. If it attempts to prove that Old Slavic Religion is derivative of Vedism, this would be very difficult to do given the existing literature. If it attempts to prove that Vedism was widespread in the area which is now Russia - there are no sources which claim this. The Volga Vishnu just proves there were some trade relations. In fact, there was no Hinduism in Russian until the 1970s. It is tries to review Hindu communities in Slavic countries - well, then it should have the name of Hinduism in Russia and be recreated from scratch.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't guarantee any claim like "there was no hinduism in russia before 1970", especially when the country itself has passed from christian extremist rule, and later communists. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw may I please ask you to stop adding statements to the artcle which are not supported by sources. For example, p. 135 of "The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History" does not mention any connections between Vedism and Arkhaim, nor actually Slavs (there were no Slavs in the area until 1581, which was the year of the Yermak expedition).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that one for now. It's not presented the way it actually is, so it will need some re-writing, i will be doing. Once this dispute is over. The article will need more amounts of links, so it can attract more viewers. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The one you just added is not much better, since it is in Siberia.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? The leading description of article includes Siberia as a place. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slavs did not live in Siberia until the 16th century.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, attributed it for now, and added some more. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was opened by a known anti-hindu conflict creator of Wikipedia. And I believe that this issue must be closed already now, because it was opened by a sock puppet after all, Look Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajputbhatti/Archive#02_January_2014. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete I've removed the most conspicuously fringe material; however, it's not clear to me that anything that's left isn't derived from a primary source. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think it's relevant? Especially when the page was nominated by some anti-hindu sock. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've raised the issue of it being a sock creation at WP:AN - please don't respond there, let others deal with that. I've just heavily trimmed the article. Bladesmulti's edits did not have sources mentioning the subject of this article (and newspaper stories are not a substitute for proper archaeological reports, they are too likely to be inaccurate or sometimes have a spin put on them). Other sections seemed just publicity for minor organisations (if they even exist in real life), and a projected city which was self-sourced. In a proper AfD I'd either be !voting to delete or to merge with the Slavic Neopaganism which lists Slavic Vedism as an alternative name. The only other possibility would be Russian Vedism. Ah, for fun, see [28]. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agree, The article has no more unrelated material, I commented on the AN too. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

leaning Delete: Not much material from good RS on the subject in the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources of similar information are russian, but i still added a diff source, article is relatively not too large either. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A lot of material can be found in Russian language: --79.17.79.90 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — 79.17.79.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The problem is distinguishing material that does not come from these groups' sites. If you can give specific independent citations we could evaluate them, but a simple Google is too hard to evaluate this way due to the need for translation. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added info and links. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. This is a content fork, because we already have Slavic neopaganism. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Slavic vedism and neopaganism are not really related. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Please explain. According to this page and quoted sources, it is a variety of Slavic neopaganism. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Vedism contains only the vedic relation, while Slavic neopaganism includes number of beliefs that are not coherent to Vedas. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference, exactly? I am certainly not an expert, however something based on the forged (?) Book of Veles seem to be a variety of modern paganism - per sources on various pages. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have formatted the references, adding as much information as I could find on each, moved them all to the reflist and tagged three of them as self published. Still not really seeing notability for the subject established also not seeing distinction from material mentioned in other WP articles. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to KLAX-FM. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Raza (radio)

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KLAX-FM, the most notable station with this branding. Seems to be an artifact article about these stations before consistent articles about radio stations were established and is a literal orphan article. Nate • (chatter) 18:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Per nom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Nate. Levdr1lp / talk 08:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Baroin

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

There is no indication of notability of the subject. He is neither a notable academic nor a notable creative professional. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think this does meet GNG, even if they aren't considered notable under specific guidelines. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any actual evidence that he meets GNG? There's certainly nothing in the article itself to suggest that WP:ACADEMIC and WP:CREATIVE are not the appropriate standards of notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His highest score at Scholar is... 2 citations. Tkuvho (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless evidence of notability is provided (e.g., major prizes or honors received by him), this should be deleted. Ebony Jackson (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the sources presented in the article are good enough for WP:GNG, and there is also no evidence he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the upbeat tone of the article, no real evidence of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Givens

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

Unable to verify his WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was considering deleting this before but slipped my mind. Non-notable boxer fails WP:NBOXING JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article about a boxer who fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. As observed, this wasn't writing at all. It was copying and pasting the organization's own copyrighted advertising blurb, written in the first person, into Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One degree initiative

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

This seem to be very promotional. Ujjwal234goel (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Copyvio of [29] --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canvas Infotech

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

Just a run of the mill CA info-tech company. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or any number of other policies and guidelines. Shirt58 (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, reading the "run of the mill" description from Wikipedia i think it does not fit in any of its categories. As you can read, this company has offices in Sunnyvale and India, with clients as important as Fox, Facebook or Apple. Problem is that with an "accounting" company you usually don't publish that on any kind of source, you keep that to yourself. That's why it's very dificult to find secondary sources for this kind of business. Nevertheless i would like to improve the article. So even though this is tagged for deletion i'm going to search for more sources. Thank you. Elandroid (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill or not, there aren't multiple WP:RELIABLE sources necessary to establish notability. JNW (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete I'm trying to gather and add more sources, i've added two (i think) this morning and i will be searching and adding more. And as I said before sometimes the companies don't want to tell to everybody who made their accounting and such. So it's harder.Elandroid (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Elandroid, deletion discussions usually last for at least seven days, except for cases of blatant policy violations that must be deleted immediately. There's no need to worry, you have time. If you can find reliable sources that prove this company is notable enough for an article, it won't be deleted. Novusuna ^talk 16:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly-sourced article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a tech company to have a presence in California and India isa remarkably routine; all large corporations buy thousands of minor products from not notable manufacturers, but yes, it is true that for most accounting companies it is impossible to show notability the way WP uses the term. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Costa Rica national football team results. The only apparent bias in this article is removed once the datasets are put into the full context, therefore a merge is the appropriate decision here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historic matches of the Costa Rica national football team

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

You know an article deserves deletion when its only context is within the article title. Ignoring the article title it qualifies as a CSD A1. Laun chba ller 12:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a case of pure WP:OR. Doesn't seem to be a list of matches played but merely of "notable victories. Fenix down (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Costa Rica national football team results and change article in line with established series of articles found in Category:National association football team results. Giant Snowman 13:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was already Costa Rica national football team match results so I have moved it to Costa Rica national football team results in accordance with established naming practice. I don't see a justification for a separate 'Historic matches of the Costa Rica national football team' page but there is some content here that can be merged into 'Costa Rica national football team results'. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we should merge the articles. Giant Snowman 18:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure OR that this selection of matches is "historic" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary content fork from Costa Rica national football team results. C 679 20:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Costa Rica national football team results. Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A merge would be inapproprate. The fundamental issue with this article is it is OR to determine what is and isn't a "historical match". To merge would add undue prominence to a number of matches. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your point. All past matches are history. By definition. Simply point this article to that one and add any missing information. Nfitz (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Side Tower

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

Unverifiable speculation about a prospective building. Prod declined for no real reason, my elaboration on Talk was met with no real interest. When and if this building becomes reality, it can have an article, but right now it's a simple violation of WP:CBALL. BTW that image is probably illegal on Commons, too... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Build it first, or at least dig a hole in the ground. I've tagged the image as an obvious copyvio. Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Timbouctou (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are few plans to even build it, much less a foundation. Epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics#Journals. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Space Operations & Communicator

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

Notability of subject isn't shown in the article. I performed basic review in search engines and didn't find any reliable sources confirming notability of this journal. Any other ideas? Rubin16 (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics#Journals. I cannot find an ISSN, nor is there a single citation to this journal on Google Scholar. It doesn't seem to be indexed in any database and Google only renders a Facebook page. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics#Journals. I could find no indexing or independent reliable sources discussing this journal. The journal's existence is verifiable and it is a plausible search term, so a redirect to American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics#Journals, where it is listed, seems reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would make sense for now--I think it will become notable soon enough. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to John Butler Yeats#Family. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Pollexfen

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

Couldn't establish that Susan is independently notable. There may be a line or two in here which would be worth adding to John Butler Yeats#Family, and Susan Pollexfen redirecting there. However, it could be that she is seriously significant to the work of her spouse/children and it needs adding. Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect/merge to John Butler Yeats#Family. This is a classic case of the fact that notability is not inherited. She had a notable husband and four notable children, but that does not make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Butler Yeats#Family. Concur with User:Peterkingiron. Unfortunately she is not notable in her own right. Finnegas (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silas T. Cobb

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

Pure WP:ONEEVENT. No other claim to notability than a very minor role in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Somebody had to be on sentry go, and they happened to be called Silas T Cobb, end of story. TheLongTone (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. This article is on a very minor player in that event. It might be worth merging one sentence of text into that article, so that the name is mentioned, but that is the most we should have. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No compelling, policy-backed arguments have been made for this article's inclusion. Notability is not inherited or transferred. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Hernandez

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

Is this crime victim sufficiently notable? I don't think so. (I do admit that there is a certain amount of irony in that part of the criticism of the media from her case was that she was not given enough coverage, but I do think that notability is lacking, unless we're going to start making all murder victims notable.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps merge to Murder of Laci Peterson There are a lot of book hits on this one, and they invariably pair the two cases. Outright deletion doesn't seem to be the right solution to this, but I agree that an independent article is hard to justify. Mangoe (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and what should be a policy WP:NOTTRUECRIME. Bad things happen. Newspapers cover the stories. It does not follow that this is sufficient for encyclopedic biography. My condolences to the victim's family and friends. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - per connection willing or unwillingly to the Peterson case. should pass GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The case was only lightly reported at the time. While there are parallels to the later Peterson case, they are not sufficiently noted in Reliable Sources (a letter from a retired politician is not a Reliable Source). Ironically, one of the arguments in favor of keeping this article (in other words, an argument for notability of the crime) is that this case did NOT receive the publicity that the Peterson case did.[30] --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the article is kept, its title should be changed to Murder of Evelyn Hernandez per usual Wikipedia practice. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the murder in itself is not notable, it is highly relevant to the Peterson case, as well as a prominent example of Missing white girl syndrome. People reading up on the former two would be very out of luck to not be able to read about this case. Also, it made national news -Cake~talk 16:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Hamrol

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

Is this 1906 San Francisco earthquake survivor notable? I don't think so, particularly because coverage of him was based on the mistaken belief that he was the last living survivor at the time of his death. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- This is a typical one event case. the 1906 earthquake was a major catastrophe. It might be worth having a paragraph at the end of the article on that listing the last survivors, but otherwise the subject is utterly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The population of SF at the time was about 300,000. Our article on the earthquake gives a death toll of 3,000. Approximately 99% of the inhabitants survived. Which of the 297,000 survived the lognest after that time is the essence of triviality. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1906 San Francisco earthquake, where he is already mentioned so no further merging is necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1906_San_Francisco_earthquake#Centennial_commemorations David in DC (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yawgoog Scout Reservation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yawgoog, Rhode Island

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

not even listed in GNIS. There is a scout camp that has that name and some infamy, but it has its own article. It is not evident that this place even exists as a seperate entity from the scout camp either now or historically John from Idegon (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as unverifiable. I cannot find any evidence that such a village exists; may sources mention a pond and a reservoir called Yawgoog, but not a village. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a discussion about this and other Rhode Island village articles at Talk:Rhode Island. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yawgoog Scout Reservation. Even that articles states that it's in Rockville, Rhode Island, which is an unsourced stub itself. There is so little online that could be added as to be worthless. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme Sympathy

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

Single that doesn't appear to have ever charted. There are a few mentions for the track, like in this Billboard review and this SPIN review, but they aren't even entire sentences. The redirect keeps getting undone by an editor, who seems to refuse adding reliable references to the article, and the article itself has nothing to say but some OR on what is supposedly "referenced" in the song and some stuff on the video. I'd gladly settle for a redirect, but the other editor makes that impossible. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme deletion. --Nlu (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mackinac Financial Corporation

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

A CSD A7 was declined. No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW.

NOTE: This article is one of around 62 mass produced from stock exchange listings. All either PRODed now, or those that have run their 7 days at AfD have been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a major company. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FuelCell Energy

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

A CSD A7 was declined. No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article is one of around 62 mass produced from stock exchange listings. All either PRODed now, or those that have run their 7 days at AfD have been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is deleted, FuelCell Energy, Inc. should be deleted as well. While it is currently a redirect, it used to be an article about this topic. It was created by the same editor who created this article at about the same time, and there are few differences between the earliest edit of it and the early edits of this page. For reference, here is the initial edit and its final edit before it became a redirect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a major company. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in some industies, $250 million in capitalization would be big, but not in the energy sector. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Zad68 16:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love-shyness

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

Scratching my head what to do here. Feasibly, could be some mention at shyness or in some medical or psychological condition it can be equated to. In the absence of this, however, I feel it has no place here as it is currently described as some form or legitimate stand-alone psychological condition or syndrome. For this it would optimally need to be categorised (or even mentioned) in ICD10 or DSM 5, or failing that receive some sort of detailed discussion in a secondary source. If these can be provided, then this deletion debate can be reconsidered. Am surprised here that I actually agree with A Man In Black. Anyway, discuss away. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to shyness~~. The last AFD was in 2006, before WP:MEDRS or requirements for reliable medical sources. This is an article about a concept furthered by one person, one book, one study: a vanity entry, based on primary sources, and in the seven years since its last AFD, the concept still has gained no traction in medical literature. There is *one* entry in PubMed: Gilmartin's own PMID 3681636 from 1987. Eliminate the WP:UNDUE emphasis on one book and one person's primary research, that has gained no traction, and merge the basic definition to shyness; there is no such identifiable condition, and Wikipedia is not the love-shyness webhost. Perhaps in 2006 we wrote vanity entries on alleged medical conditions to support one person's book; we shouldn't be doing that anymore. (By the way, how did this article stand for seven years without a single page number to back these claims? Not one book citation includes a page number for verification.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a combination of topic obscurity and poor linking from other articles... Lesion (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per subsequent Casliber analysis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a recognised entity, fails WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The article's main editor concedes that the concept is controversial.[31] Any salvageable content should be merged with shyness. JFW | T@lk 07:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only one book, and the books that exist don't treat this as an aspect of shyness. There are plenty of books that mention Gilmartin's work, in the fields of educational and social psychology. The concept clearly has gained traction. These books treat this as an aspect of bullying. Here are just a few of the books that aren't written by Gilmartin that cite his research:
- ISBN 9781578867998, pp. 129–130
- ISBN 9780199721979, pp. 77–78 (Oxford University Press, author is a social psychologist and a professor at Brunel University)
- ISBN 9781846423239, p. 110 (author is a psychologist and a professor at the University of South Australia)
- ISBN 9780864314475, p. 59 (by professor Rigby again)
Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G: do those sources specifically use the term "love-shyness"? Lesion (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one uses the term in inverted commas (which can be interpreted I guess in a number of ways) - mentions a 1987 study where loveshy people had a higher incidence of being bullied. So a somewhat oblique reference and more interested in the link to bullying rather than the reified phenomenon possibly. More to come. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the second book, but the book is about homophobic bullying, while the research was on heterosexual men. So strikes me as oblique - also really restricted to 1987 study (like first ref) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the page in the third book, but the text link indicates it refers to the 1987 study (again) WRT bullying. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fourth is same use of same material as third. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately the interest appears to be in bullying and a form of social inhibition that Gilmartin calls "loveshy" and reifies in the process. I've just read the original 1987 paper and find alot of it pretty arbitrary as to where he has drawn lines in defining this. It also lacks links to psychiatric diagnoses. But back to the point, if the interest is overwhelmingly in the study, then we'd be referencing the secondary source noting the link and hence omitting specific mention of a single study. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially fails as per WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Undue, fringe, OR. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could merge a bit with Shyness but as others have noted, this is a WP:FRINGE concept promoted by a single author. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Reasons for nomination fail to pass muster. The article contains references from multiple sources This is absolutely not original reasearch, and calling it fringe is ludicrous, and inconsistent with discussions on other article talk pages of what constitutes "fringe." If it is mentioned in books published by oxford univeristy press, I think that makes shoots down any claims of WP:MEDRS. Let's not waste time deleting this as it likely will be restored again as more information about it continues to be published. There are dozens of articles that were deleted for the same reasons only to later be recreated when the topic became too mainstream to ignore--173.75.214.124 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original papers are more than 25 years old; if the concept was going to gain any traction, it would have by now. (Noting that most of the spamming of this topic into unrelated articles has come from mobile phone edits.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@173.75.214.124: - also, the references are mainly to the single 1987 study and focus on the bullying link - the term (which is essentially a neologism) is only referred to peripherally. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- Based on Cas Liber's assessment of the other sources above, I do not think we have WP:GNG or WP:MEDRS (no recent, independent secondary or tertiary sources discussing the topic in depth). With this same reasoning we should not have this content merged to any other page either. Lesion (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Walker (album)

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NALBUM. - Mr X 14:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 18 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) 01:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 02:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability - fails WP:GNG & WP:NALBUMS. — sparklism ^hey! 10:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Starlight

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NALBUM. - Mr X 14:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 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) 01:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 02:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability - fails WP:GNG & WP:NALBUMS. — sparklism ^hey! 10:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, due to inadequate participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio José Jorge Conte

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

After a good faith search, failed to find any references that were capable of satisfying WP:N or WP:SIGCOV. ManicSpider (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - a fairly major basketball team appears to have used it, but I don't know how notable basketball courts generally are. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the others, does a "fairly major" team having used it make it notable without any reliable, significant coverage? And if so, under what policy? If it is the team that is notable, then perhaps it can be merged with their article. -ManicSpider (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know how notable basketball courts generally are" - hence the weak keep. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:47, 17 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) 01:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Thanks everyone for contributing and please remember to assume good faith with my closure. Feel free to renominate for deletion. SarahStierch (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio Fortunato Bonelli

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

After a good faith search, failed to find any references that were capable of satisfying WP:N or WP:SIGCOV. ManicSpider (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Stadium used by a professional basketball team. I don't know how notable these basketball arenas generally are though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the others, does a "fairly major" team having used it make it notable without any reliable, significant coverage? And if so, under what policy? If it is the team that is notable, then perhaps it can be merged with their article. -ManicSpider (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know how notable basketball courts generally are" - hence the weak keep. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 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) 01:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ratan Lal Nagar

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

Non-notable place Epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this article placed in AfD in less than an hour after it was created?[32] --Oakshade (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a distinct neighborhood [33] with many civic and private places identifying themselves with the address Ratan Lal Nagar as the locality name.--Oakshade (talk) 06:11, 18 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) 01:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a quick google books search confirms what User:Oakshade stated above. --Soman (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Morris

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

There is presently only one source cited, and it is far from being the case that "any material likely to be challenged [is] attributed to a reliable, published source." Nor do I consider the use of words and phrases such as "pioneered", "fundamentally transformed" and "extraordinary returns" to constitute writing in a "dispassionate tone". It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 18:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it reads very conflicted. Can we be sure that this Nigel Morris is not this Nigel Morris? Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:38, 18 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) 01:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A senior executive of a company of the size alleged ought to be notable. The career given for him is clearly not that found by Barney the barney barney. I suspect we need an American Who's Who for him. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Copyvio issues solved. AFD withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 10:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry Skinner

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

Copyvio of http://www.historic.org.nz/corporate/registersearch/ProfessionalBio/Professional.aspx?CPName=Skinner,+William+Henry Schwede 66 01:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has been completely rewritten by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and is no longer a copyvio. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now rewritten and no longer a copyvio - great! How do I withdraw the AfD? Schwede 66 05:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No compelling, policy-backed arguments have been made for this article's inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Madness (series)

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

Non notable web series. All refs are primary. Beerest 2 talk 02:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with some primary sources, which I recently removed, along with some edits based purely on POV. However, the first two sources do offer reliable references for the page's introductory paragraph, as both sources feature official statements by James Rolfe, creator of Monster Madness, and Doug Walker, creator of Disneycember (even though the section about Disneycember isn't totally necessary). Even if the web series is non notable, it is included in James Rolfe's filmography, creator of the influential Angry Video Game Nerd, and is one of his major, most extensive projects, along with the AVGN. I'm not there. Message me! 21:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 01:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not able to find any sources covering this that are independent of the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Clapper

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

This is a vanity page and/or advertisement, it contains no references or sources at all. Tom Barrister 06:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Low level commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. One of the iconic goofy products (and ad campaigns) of the 1980s. [34][35][36] And something of a product design landmark--one of the first products to use a "gestural interface" and an auditory sensor [37][38]-- and still invoked frequently as an precursor for more sophisticated designs or as an object of nostalgia [39][40] [41].--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on! Afd off! The clapper. It's in the same goofy league as the Chia Pet and X-Ray Specs. In addition to Arxiloxos's references, there's Gizmodo, and the Lemelson Center of the National Museum of American History has a collection of documentation about the thing.[42] Lots more where that came from, I'm sure. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG per [43], [44] (open page, then select p. 5), [45]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This device was iconic for a period of time, in the US at least. Reliable sources here and here discuss the product in depth. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)\\[reply]
Note If it's going to be kept, then it needs sources/references, and the few it has need to be inline. I cleared most of the advertising tone from it. Also, for information purposes, sound-activated devices have existed since the 1960s; the Clapper was not the first to use this. Tom Barrister 20:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just read through the popular culture list. This item is notable enough in pop culture alone to merit an article. Crumpled Fire (talk) 23:25, 29 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) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there looks to be sufficient coverage in the above links to satisfy WP:GNG. Gong show 02:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An iconic product which meets WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk)
Keep. Subject is notable and interesting from the perspective of technological history. As somebody who was alive in 1973, I know that turning lights off by clapping your hands was seen as the height of tech sophistication. --gilgongo (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been significantly improved since nomination. Justifications for deletion given above are no longer valid (if they ever were). ~KvnG 21:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cuff#Trouser cuffs. Sandstein 08:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tight rolled pants

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

Stale article on trivial fad with no actual citations of any value. Orange Mike | Talk 22:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "Pegged pants", by far the more common term. A Google Books search shows this 1950s fashion trend discussed in dozens of books as something iconic of certain social groups of that era. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1950s? If you look up "peg-top trousers" as well, you'll see that these were a fashion in the 19th century, long before the incorporation into the zoot suit. Twice: once in the 1860s and again in the 1890s (continuing into the 1900s). Yes, our article is spectacularly uninformative and misleading on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for a recentist like me it's not bad, though it fails to point out the connection between Benetton and rolled-up trousers, and the essential preppiness of their practitioners. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cuff#Trouser cuffs. It's merely a ~~trivial~~ variation. LadyofShalott 17:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cuff#Trouser cuffs along with the photo for illustration of the variation. Losing this detail would be unfortunate. --gilgongo (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - notable but not much here, so bring the two articles together. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to For Today (band). Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fight the Silence

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

Future release. Still not notable. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to For Today (band). Given the group's previous studio releases, this future album will likely chart and receive significant coverage in reputable publications. Until then, a redirect seems appropriate as the title and release date have been confirmed. Gong show 02:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to For Today (band). Best way to handle this as it's not even happend yet. --gilgongo (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep.(non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Freer

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

Article appears to assert claim for subject being a criminal. Does not fit WP:CRIME. He is discussed with his role at Tiger Telematics which also contains quite a bit of his biographical information. All the references in this article with the exception of L.A. Times and Sunday Times (both articles written 5 days apart) are about different companies he has been with. The only claim of importance is that of a criminal which does not seem to fit. JakenBox (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - After nominating, I see that this was previously recommended for deletion in 2008. After reading some of the comments from that discussion, another thought would be to redirect into Tiger Telematics as that article contains much of the same information in this biography. --JakenBox (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The sources linked in the article prove that the subject of the article falls under a specific exception as described in WP:CRIME: "indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." That this occurred in the video game industry does not make that any less true. Finally, this article was nominated for deletion before and was kept; since then it has been significantly improved with secondary sources. If it was kept then, it should certainly be kept now. Universaladdress (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came to Wikipedia to look the guy up. KingHooves (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Universaladdress. Tomas e (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the two above me have given no reason at all for Keep I will... It is within the criterias for WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The presence of sources have ruled out the contents being a hoax, and there have been no calls for deletion except for the nominator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most royal candidate theory

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any evidence that this is actually a theory outside of Wikipedia. No mention in any books, no Google Scholar hits (I'd expect one in either direction for an even basically-known theory), and the web hits (including searches for Brooks-Baker, alleged proponent of the theory) do not come up with anything viable, and perhaps only exist at all due to this article. Possible hoax? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not a hoax; the nominator must not be old enough to remember Brooks-Baker's quadrennial pronouncements (when he was alive) before each American presidential election. For example, in 1996, in The New York Times, we can read "American Presidential candidates with ties to royalty have a distinct advantage over those bereft of noble connections. Or so says HAROLD B. BROOKS-BAKER, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, the British authority on aristocratic genealogy." The Times' coverage is typical, as it is careless about the fact that Burke's had nothing to do with Brooks-Baker's predictions. - Nunh-huh 04:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC) See also: Brooks-Baker being debunked in the Times in 1988 (Quoting Brooks-Baker: "The genes or chromosomes for leaders come forward whether it's kings or presidents. You cannot hold back the genes."). - Nunh-huh 04:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is pretty obviously real. Because the "less royal" candidate won in 2004 (ostensibly the first time this happened in US history), it's no longer as serious a theory as it was, and of course its main advocate died the next year, and so is no longer on every tabloid talk show (and some legit news shows when they're slumming) talking about it every presidential election, but it was more than noteworthy at the time, ergo still merits inclusion. —Kaz (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references, to make this a bit clearer. I am astonished that another commenter tried to claim that there were no real secondary references. They were embarrassingly easy to find. —Kaz (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, though it was presented as a "serious" theory, no one with any brains ever took it seriously, quickly realizing it was pretty much Brooks-Baker's publicity stunt, eagerly taken up by a willingly misinformative media in their quest to fill air-time. The article has, in former revisions, pointed out counterexamples which disproved the theory well before 2004: pairs of elections in which two candidates faced off, with one winning the first time, and the other winning the second time. Obviously in one of those elections of each pair, the "least royal" won. (Thomas Jefferson vs John Adams in 1796 and 1800; Andrew Jackson vs John Quincy Adams in 1824 and 1828; William Henry Harrison vs Martin Van Buren in 1836 and 1840; Grover Cleveland vs Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and 1892….) - Nunh-huh 03:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Found one journal article on the topic after a brief search. -Well-rested ^Talk 10:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be real, this was listed for deletion because someone was too lazy to do their research, and therefore leapt to the conclusion that it may be a hoax. It's obviously not, and is clearly noteworthy. If nobody's discussing, it's probably because this is so painfully obvious. — Kaz (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not lazy, it's that the "theory" does not appear to be noteworthy and came across as hoaxish. The idea of royal lineage within the ranks of presidential candidates is one that's gotten attention, but not really this theory. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator claimed he couldn't find any secondary sources at all, and suggested the article, itself, was a hoax. Those of us who DID bother to check were able to find a great many major secondary sources, with just minutes of looking. If the New York Times, Reuters, Guardian, and USA Today considered it worth covering, repeatedly, over a twenty year period, then it's clearly noteworthy. Again, the deletion was proposed with the claim that there was no such theory in the first place, not that all the major media covering the very real theory was not sufficient to make it worth inclusion.
    — Kaz (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ODD, WP:FRINGE, and truth is stranger than fiction. I recall it being discussed every four years on traditional media, although it seems to have faded into the background of Obama birth certificate conspiracies and the like. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No compelling, policy-backed arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. Notability is not inherited or transferred. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Huber Residence

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

Smalltown building with no evidence of any coverage whatsoever from sources that are both independent and reliable, but creator (who added a pile of unreliable sources, and a copyvio) removed my prod without any explanation. First off, several of the sources aren't reliable. Source 1 and Source 2 are church websites talking about their activities; no substantial coverage, and not reliable sources. Source 5 looks like a media source, but it's not: it's a community website produced by this company, which is basically running some information pages about the city in which it's based. Source 6 is an autogenerated webpage; it's only as good as the phone book. Source 4 is from the county historical society, and source 5 is from the local newspaper: while they're reliable with other things, we've always held that local sources aren't independent enough to convey notability. For example, this is the reason why WP:POLITICIAN excludes routine local politicians: like this building, the mayor and councilmen in this city have appeared in the local paper and various other local sources, but unless they appear in regional or national sources, they're considered nonnotable, and the same is true of this building. Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable for its architecture, connection to a very prominent family (it was built for Edward Huber's son Frank), and was designed by a very notable firm. Plenty of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. One of the many articles cited has a series of stunning photo of the mansion's interior (vintage and contemporary). Hard to believe anyone with an interest in architecture or experience working on architecture subjects would think this building worth deleting from Wikipedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually write articles about architectural subjects, so I know that these aren't sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Let me remind you that notability is not inherited from notable architects, and when we have only local sourcing, it's not sufficient. Otherwise essentially everything would qualify, since we can pull up local documentation from virtually everything. Let me remind everyone else that Candleabracadabra's idea of a reliable source includes autogenerated source #6 and small-company-produced source #5. If you think that's the kind of thing on which encyclopedias are written, you're going to find tons of things that look reliable. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not show why this former residential home is notable. Claim is that it was the home of the son of .... Rest of the article is about the building lots and the son of .... Maybe interesting for a local historian on his home page, but not for an encyclopedia. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see any real justification for this article. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IGolaware Linux

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

This distribution is extremely poorly referenced on the internet, which is where one would go to find information about Linux distros. Even Hikarunix, an extremely niche Ubuntu distro gets more than seven times as many Google hits as iGolaware. There is a large review on Distrowatch, but that's about what you would expect for any repackaging of Ubuntu, notable or not. Slashme (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - linux distribution article of unclear notability. Refs provided are a blog and a brief mention on distrowatch and do not constitute significant RS coverage. A search revealed no additional RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The domain/home page for this distro no longer exists (6 January 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.130.172 (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Heavy WP:SOAP problems. --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 26 May 2009

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

A only minor conflict that has no importance or significance, fails WP:NEVENTS JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by "not news." What we have is an attempted robbery with 7 people arrested and turned over to the proper authorities and no fatalities. The fact that it took place on the ocean does not make it notable.Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. EricSerge (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GregJackP Boomer! 18:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kitfoxxe. I questioned the notability in the first place, since it seemed very strange to describe this as a naval action (corresponding to a land battle) in the first place. Tomas e (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: this is a routine event Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8775564. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] ttp://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8775564. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]