Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 October	27 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andres de abreu

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

Does not meet WP:Notability i did a search ^[1]^[2]and doesn't seem to have any significant importance Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 23:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFOOTY says that fully professional players are generally deemed notable, but I'm not sure if this applies to a fourth-tier soccer league. The National Premier Soccer League isn't listed among leagues that the WikiProject Football has recognized in the past[1], and I trust their judgement.TheBlueCanoe 17:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per TheBlueCanoe and others above. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFOOTY and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 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, can be userfied on request if someone would like to start the list of characters.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Drago

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

Fails WP:GNG - nothing out there to show this character has notability separate from The Godfather's Revenge. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable character that fails the WP:GNG. Could also be merged into a list of characters, which does not seem to exist. I suggest List of The Godfather characters. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I second the NinjaRobotPirate: an article listing The Godfather characters would be the right place for this and other content.TheBlueCanoe 17:30, 27 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Linville

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

Matthew Linville only really had one significant role, and the notability requirements for actors suggest that people need at least 2 significant roles in notable films or television shows. Even at that, Linville's role as "Jimmy Moon" in 7th Heaven is not significant enough to get him on the fairly long list of major characters on the article about 7th heaven. To make things worse, up until recently this was really a character summary masquerading as a biography. The only thing of any note that Linville has ever done is play a second tier character in a TV show, he is not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 October 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, BusterD (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One secondary role in a TV series and a scattering of other minor credits isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another minor child actor best known for one role accompanied by other minor work. After searching at Google News, I found one link. Most (child) actors don't start acting again unless it's to embark on a more serious level, but if he does act again or does anything else notable, I have no prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 3 November 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--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State Park Geocaching Challenge

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

A not-especially notable event that is no longer active. There are plenty of similar geocaching events, none of which have or need their own articles. Bazonka (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 October 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, BusterD (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Not notable short lived event....William 15:58, 27 October 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. Discounting the flood of supporters evidently brought here by canvassing on the subject web-site, there is a clear consensus that this does not meet Wikipedia's WP:notability requirement. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Forum

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

Deprodded with a promise to work on, but I see no way it could be worked on. Gbooks and Gnews turn up only false positives. Utterly fails WP:WEB — no sourcing besides the forum itself and Alexa rankings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NWEB. Seems to have one relevant hit on Google News, but it's subscription. In any case, that wouldn't be enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Halloween Forum is a notable website and it just needs some time to work on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.136.43 (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Halloween Admin is still working on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.59.13 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This page has not been given enough time to be fully completed.

Keep. Article has been promised to be worked on. This is giving the creator no chance to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.159.162 (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Non-notable, referenced by primary sources, etc. How did this not get deleted last year when it was created? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 18:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently no significant coverage in independent sources. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admin needs time to work on this page, Halloween forum is becoming increasingly influential in the Halloween and haunting community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.214.161 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the same reasons that I originally deprodded the page in the first place Danielj2705 (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Halloween Forum is a notable website and it just needs some time to be worked on.

Keep. Halloween Forum provides a centralized location for Halloween home haunter prop builds, music and costume and makeup tutorials. It is a very valuable and free resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.16.2 (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This forum is an invaluable tool that is being utilized not only by individuals in the US, but in several countries. It is the premier forum for sharing ideas, researching tutorials, and to come together as a true "Community". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.68 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. HalloweenForum is NOT just a social site, it is a Tool. This site is a plethera of useful inforamtion and helpful members. I have used the site to have both generic and highly technical questions answered. Please do not delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.68 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Halloween Forum is a notable website and it just needs some time to work on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.57.45 (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Keep - great resources for those who love Halloween — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.84 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Keep The site helps build peoples spirits and give them confidence to do the things they never thought they could do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.232.156 (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Keep. Article has been promised to be worked on. This is giving the creator no chance to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.211.161 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Keep. Further notice of promise to be worked on. Halloween Forum is a tool for numerous people that put significant effort into planning/designing/building Halloween decorations, displays, and parties; all of this for the sole enjoyment of others at no charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.194.48.97 (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Keep. Halloween Forum is a notable website and it just needs some time to work on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.159.254 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Halloween Forum is a great website and but needs some time to be worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.160.194 (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Comment Struck out the crapflood of SPA !votes from IPs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No disrespect to Halloween enthusiasts, but there are no independent reliable sources to establish this as a notable website. Read WP:N.TheBlueCanoe 22:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N very much. Oh, by the way, expect a LOT of single purpose accounts - I went and checked and there's a topic up at this forum that begs people to come here to save this page. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Taylor Trescott: Looks like the topic was removed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep. Halloween Forum is a notable website and it just needs some time to work on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.61.57 (talk)~~
Delete Apologies to the very passionate IPs, but the subject seems to have some notability issues.LM2000 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:N and I've request semi protection for this AfD for a day or so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 30 October 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. KTC (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lowell

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

This was recently deleted via an invalid second prod, so I restored it. I originally deprodded this a year ago at which time I found enough coverage to convince me that he may be be notable. Since then anonymous editors removed most of the content. I can't find enough now to demonstrate notability, so bringing to AfD to get wider input. Michig (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what's there now I'd say delete, certainly. (Apologies for missing the earlier prod). Andrew Gray (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 27 October 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 redirect to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric (W.I.T.C.H.)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. Not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable but redirecting (to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters) is better option in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No claim made about real world notability, no external references. Possibly leave a redirect and merge into List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. LK (talk) 03:50, 4 November 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 redirect to List of Tenjho Tenge characters#F. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsuhito Kagiroi

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

This does not establish notability independent of Tenjho Tenge through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tenjho Tenge characters#F. Not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:27, 27 October 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 merge to X-Men. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graymalkin Industries

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into X-Men. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into X-Men. I'll go along with BOZ on this one, but I guess a case could be made for Features of the Marvel Universe, too. At any rate, it's not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:34, 27 October 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. KTC (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disneyland/Walt Disney World Music Vacation

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

Non-notable album with no reviews in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and ~~WP:ALBUM. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)~~ WP:NALBUM. De728631 (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--fails WP:NALBUMS quite spectacularly, with no references except the liner notes. Jinkinson talk to me 21:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source is itself. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a delete world after all - You know it's a bad sign when the only source given for the article is the subject itself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:24, 31 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Vigouroux

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

Information copied from wikipedia in Spanish and not translated. Demster (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are media references and the statement that he was on Chile's under-20 team. I added a {{translate}} tag. For a rough translation, see this Google translation Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievments. Fenix down (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Youth caps do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 11:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTY.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON, un til he ius a regualr member of the Spurs first team. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:12, 30 October 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 redirect to Alfred Szklarski#Adventures of Tomek Wilmowski. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Zelga

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

Non-notable author. Unsourced, which is a requirement for a WP:BLP ES &L 16:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Alfred_Szklarski#Career and add a sentence there that Zelga completed the final work posthumously. there are what appear to be a number of hits to Russian language news sources for the name [2] but without evidence the the hits are for the same Adam Zelga and that it is the Adam Zelga author/priest in our article, and that they provide any significant content about the subject, Adam Zelga should not be a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Alfred_Szklarski#Career, refer to the fact that Adam Zelga finished his last work. --Nlfestival (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alfred Szklarski#Adventures of Tomek Wilmowski (a more-appropriate target); unsourced BLP. Miniapolis 01:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'm on the fence between deleting and redirecting to Alfred Szklarski#Adventures of Tomek Wilmowski. I'm not convinced enough that redirecting to a sentence about Zelga completing a work is enough to warrant a redirect. However redirects are cheap and it won't cause any harm other than there not being a redlink. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:12, 30 October 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 SNOW delete. JamesBWatson (talk)

Download youtube videos

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

Notability/advertising. Seems like a run-of-the-mill video downloader. One review by "CNET staff" and a review from PCWorld. Apparently the creator LindaBanh keeps creating similar articles... Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't suggest why this particular downloader is notable ~~not~~nor if the company producing it is notable.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 16:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'nor', maybe, not 'not'? Peridon (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oops- yes.. should read "nor if the company..."-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 20:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They've got rid of the copyvio and spam present at /Download Youtube Videos, but there's no indication of notability for me. Peridon (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. --Nlfestival (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software. Editor appears to be here just to push their software. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article author just created a similar article at Download Youtube Video Using 3 Different Methods which I have just nominated for deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Your average poorly-written WP:ADVERT, along with a link to a website selling the product which makes me afraid to click anything in that window. Nate • (chatter) 06:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per other deleted contributions from the article's creator, their single purpose which has been shown as disruptive linkspam, earning a block of editing privileges for the editor.—John Cline (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. (Note: I deleted an associated article and blocked the user that started the article. That an article is written like an advert is still not a reason to delete it. Nothing salvageable here, tho.) --Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 29 October 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 speedily deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest Density, Two Dimensional Fermion Liquid Ever Found in Nature

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

Too confusing for lay audience, written like a news piece/essay. If the substance it's referring to doesn't already have an article then I suggest we nuke this and start a page on it. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:33, 26 October 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 redirect to Austin Independent School District#Middle schools. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O. Henry Middle School

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

As per Wikipedia:CORP#Schools and Wikipedia:Notability, middle and elementary schools are generally not considered notable enough to be given their own article. Consequently, this article should be deleted. Rubinkumar^Talk 14:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin Independent School District#Middle schools per normal practice for nn middle schools. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Whispering Wind's recommendation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district, Austin Independent School District#Middle schools. Searches for reliable source coverage show interest only from the local newspaper. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district, Austin Independent School District#Middle schools per standard precedent as documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus for all but the most unusual or exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 04:11, 1 November 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 merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Academy (comics)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Not independently notable. I see some mentions on Google Books, but they all appear to be trivial mentions and/or primary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 October 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) 16:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2013

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

WP:OR The Banner talk 13:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page will be referred to for the next three years by many readers. Purrum (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for two reasons: 1) on procedural grounds: deletion nominations which don't make any case for deletion beyond vaugely waving at a policy should be rejected out of hand as a waste of everyone's time 2) this isn't OR anyway: electoral pendulums are one of the most common tools used to compare the standing of political parties in Australia, and they're widely complied and published. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, there is a value judgement attached to the seats. That is clearly own research as the sources provided do not give any value judgement. The Banner talk 11:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The seats are ordered by the size of the previous election's Two-party-preferred vote margin, which is the standard way of presenting Australian electoral pendulums. The seats with a small margin are more vulnerable to a swing in votes against the party which currently holds it. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the nominator, when saying to a "value judgement" is applied, is referring to the classification of seats as marginal, fairly safe and safe? This classification is based on the one consistently applied by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), and is used in National Seat Status reports and other AEC material. This can be referenced for this list here, where the AEC applies the seat status classification to the 2013 election results. (There is a "Very Safe" classification used here which is not in the AEC definition, but if there is concern over this, it is easy to remove.) --Canley (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have removed the "Very Safe" headings as they are not used by the AEC or ABC to classify seats (I have left the coloration though), and referenced the AEC classification. --Canley (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a concern about notability. It's sourced to two Australian government sources, which alone aren't enough for WP:GNG. There may be special election-coverage notability separate from GNG. I found only two news sources, but they're not exactly independent, because AFAIK they're government owned: [3] and [4]. Can we expect discussion of this particular topic in further independent RS over the next 3 years? Just my 2c. --Lexein (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The ABC is entirely independent of the government. The Government funds it, but it has complete editorial freedom in exactly the same way that the BBC (it's model) does, and it's often identified as Australia's most trusted news source. This article is part of a series (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pendulums_for_Australian_federal_elections ), and this really is a standard way of presenting the standing of the two main Australian political parties: please see the Mackerras pendulum article (if Mackerras hasn't published his version of this yet, he's presumably only waiting for counting in the final seat to be decided to be completed). Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Likewise for the Australian Electoral Commission—operated and funded by the Australian government, but as a completely independent statutory body. The AEC is the only source of election results to the media and the public as they administer the whole process and conduct the count, so it's silly to dismiss it as a usable factual source that is somehow tainted or biased by its status as a government-commissioned body. In terms of notability, election results, their margins and "safeness" thereof, and yes, electoral pendulums, are widely discussed, published and broadcast in the media for many years. --Canley (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. The article might be helped by the addition of the word "independent", for non-Australian readers, so they don't fall into the same trap I did. I've done that. --Lexein (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here's a (pre-election) version from the Australian Catholic University: link. --Surturz (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. This isn't just something knocked up by some Wikipedia editors as original research or opinion. It is based on solid factual data (official election results and seat classification) from the independent election administration body. Additionally, there should be no question of notability: Fairfax, News Corp and the ABC, as well as commercial television stations have broadcast and published variations on the Mackerras pendulum in their election coverage, throughout the campaign and afterwards (I have linked to some above). --Canley (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is sourced directly from AEC figures, and the Mackerras pendulum is a concept invented by a reputable expert over 30 years ago and used religiously in the media (especially in newspaper articles) over the entire time since. Orderinchaos 12:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if they are used overseas, but here in Australia the Mackerras pendulum is widely used often in political news coverage. --Surturz (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The Banner does not know what he's talking about. Timeshift (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the Australian Catholic University source mentioned above, I'm quite satisfied with independent coverage. Close as WP:SNOW, someone? --Lexein (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Banner has not explained how the article is original research. Regardless, I disagree with his/her view, because the article is not original research. Gfcvoice (talk) 11:20, 1 November 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Land

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. I found an article at USA Today, which discusses the Savage Land in some depth, and an "top ten" style article at What Culture, which might not be a reliable source. I don't know. Maybe someone else can find better sources, but it looks like this might be notable. I never really liked Ka-Zar or the Savage Land stories, so I'm kind of at a loss as to what to search for. I did a few searches for articles comparing the setting to its obvious influences, but I didn't get anything good. I think there's potential here, but I'm not turning up a lot of hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be viable as a series article? Cutting down the fictional elements to a couple paragraphs in a setting section and focusing on the real world aspect as basis for however many series seems fine (unless there aldeady is one somewhere.) If someone wants to try doing that, I'm fine withdrawing it. TTN (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ka-Zar, the most famous denizen, is basically just Tarzan with an attitude problem, and the Savage Land itself is basically just Skull Island. This is stated rather flatly by Crave Online. Maybe I've cobbled together enough links to establish notability, but I was hoping for something more substantial. There's a lot to say about the influences of these pulp roots, no matter how derivative the end result is. Your idea to minimize the in-universe writing certainly has merit, and I was aiming for the same thing. However, changing the article's scope would probably have to be established through consensus on the talk page. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of people who would view removal of any content as "deletionism", despite WP:PLOT and WP:INUNIVERSE. It sounds fine to me, but I foresee problems getting any consensus. I'm going to change my vote to "keep", but it's a very weak keep, unless someone else can dig up better sources than what I found. I'm not even 100% convinced that What Culture is a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage in books. Warden (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - I'll withdraw this for now to see if it can be turned into something more workable. TTN (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. It is a popular location in Marvel Comics and has been in different media appearances. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:45, October 26 2013 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISSA Manning Cup Football Competition (2013)

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

As far as i can tell, an annual report of a high school competition does not meet notability guidelines; the competition itself might (Manning cup football competition), though that is possibly also questionable. Unless there is something particularly important about this year's competition (which the article does not assert), a list of fixtures and their results isn't encyclopaedic. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NSEASONS is quite clear that season articles should only exist for top professional leagues. Additionally it requires that articles are not simply stat dumps. This article does not fulfil any of these criteria and contains little sourced prose and is not even a national competition. Fenix down (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete In resposne to some of the above comments, this is a national competition in the local context and has far more "clout" than the local professional adult football leagues, in other words what makes something "top professional" this league has been going for almost 100 years - this would be comparable to college leagues in the United States. One this note there are numerous other reputable Wikipedia entries with "fixtures and statistics". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_UEFA_Europa_League — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazras (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable competition. JMHamo (talk) 22:21, 5 November 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krishneel Nair

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

Do Not Cite Any Notable Reference. Do Not Comply With GNG. I'll be more than happy if someone prove me wrong and update this article. Foodie (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. --Nlfestival (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, an article on this guy, with a different title, created by the same user (see his talk page), was previously speedily deleted because of copyright infringement viz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA._Krishneel_Nair. No attempt has been made by the creator to include the subject in the Fiji Chess Federation article, which. I think, is the right place for mentioning him and his activities per http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/4148--titles-approved-at-the-80th-fide-congress-.html and should suffice. - Zananiri (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable secondary sourcesCanadiancow1 (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable sources, does not pass WP:GNG--Pointism (talk) 12:12, 30 October 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. Michig (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Waxler

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

Non notable entry created by a paid editor to create anti-LASIK content and advocacy on Wikipedia: [5] Lesion (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; part of a paid POV-pushing campaign. I would, however, respectfully suggest that Lesion has the wrong elance link (although the same editor was paid). A more relevant link is here: [6] bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry. I suppose we should not delete it purely for this reason, but the individual is not notable for their own bio article per original nomination too... Lesion (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Lesion and Bobrayner. I had originally AFD'ed the Waxler article when it first arrived based on the fact that he is not independently notable apart from the somewhat newsworthy LASIK controversy. There is already a section in the LASIK article about the surrounding controversy; publishing articles on each opponent of LASIK gives that controversy undue weight. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Lesion and WikiDan61.The Subject fails WP:GNG and another WP:COATRACK and was in the news solely for his views on Lasik surgery it did generate WP:Ghits for it but that does not make him notable.This article is part of Paid POV pushing [7].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an advertisement (of the negative variety). The Wikipedia doesn't accept advertisements. Non-notable person, article created entirely and solely for the benefit of commercial interests and with no intent or or effect of improving Wikipedia coverage of the matter -- quite the opposite actually. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional WP:COATRACK. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe I am missing something here, but the subject seems to be a researcher with a legitimate record [8]. I'm not sure it is enough to pass WP:PROF though: h-index=8, most cited pub with 164 cites. I don't think the advocacy is grounds for deletion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy alone is not the reason for deletion.He will clearly not pass WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think he might be notable as WP:PROF--usually anyone with cites for a single article over 100 is considered notable here, tho it will take further analysis. He is also the coauthor of a book, Optical radiation and visual health , published by the reputable publisher CRC Press. But better to throw this out and start over: it's advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regrettably. He may well be notable but (even after deleting the soapbox anti-lasik section) there doesn't seem to be any salvageable content here — the advocacy goes down to the level of the selection of sources used even for seemingly neutral facts about his career. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advocacy. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Yes, this is advocacy and this article should be deleted. In the original AfD I favored merger and was not aware of the disgraceful black-hat character of this article. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment other articles created by this article's creator need to be looked at. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, and his/her socks[9] Coretheapple (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG and WP:TNT - while he may be notable, this isn't an article, it's a LinkedIn page. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 31 October 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. Michig (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Khazin

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

The article has been already deleted from ru-wiki for the lack of notability (see the discussion) and moved for deletion in uk-wiki. To summarize the discussion held there, it follows that this person holds no recognition as an economist, never published a work seriously accepted by anyone in the economic community and apparently lacks any economic education (possessing formal education as a statistician). His publicity, primarily self-induced (the creation of wiki-articles is one of the steps in this direction), is due to his non-significant appearances in Russian television and radio talkshows, invited each time to present his bizzare appocaliptic view of forthcoming Fall of AmeЯiKa (according to his "prophecies" several years ago, the US economy should have collapsed by now and the starving American citizens should be eating their pets as we speak), however winning no recognition even as a journalist or any other media-related professional. As it happened when ru-wiki article was moved for deletion, be prepared to his IP-anonymous clone attacks accusing Da Amerikan Liberals of a plot to erase the memory of his "breakthrough researches". Prokurator11 (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet WP:GNG and if already deleted from sites that are much closer to the subject. --Nlfestival (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 1 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Green (author)

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

An author of self-published pseudohistorical books about how the Holy Grail is actually buried in Lincoln Cathedral. The article has a fair number of sources, but most of these are either very minor press coverage in Lincolnshire newspapers or are unreliable self-published fringe conspiracy/paranormal websites.

If you search for the books that Green has written, there are no reliable sources for them either. "The Lincoln Da Vinci Code" has one hit from the BBC, which is a comment someone made. The rest is all conspiracy sites and people's personal home pages. The same is true of the DVD "The Murder of Mary Magdalene: Genocide of the Holy Bloodline". There's a YouTube link, some unreliable conspiracy sites and pretty much nothing else.

Fails the criteria at WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. The article also seems rather promotional. That it finishes with a paragraph discussing how his theory about the Holy Grail must be right because a psychic used her powers of percipience to "see" the Holy Grail... well, that's befitting an asylum not an encyclopaedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned the article up greatly and removed the worst of the sources, although I will note that almost every source is a local one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This whole business is pseudo-history of a kind close to conspiracy theories. WP should not be countenancing such rubbish. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Green WIKI neither fails the criteria at WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Whether you agree or disagree with his theories is irrelevant. He is a notable author and documentary filmmaker, who appears on television broadcasts and gives talks and lectures both in the UK and the USA. It would appear there is a concerted attempt to have this page removed simply because certain individuals don't believe in the author's work, and have misrepresented his work and quotes in an excessive pruning of the page. Undoubtedly the critics of Dan Green have never read any of his work and the depth of research he and others have conducted into the subjects he discusses.

Nobody should be making a judgement based upon whether or not the studies have any merit, but neither should we assume that everyone voting or editing the article is doing so in order to misrepresent the author. I removed a good amount of information from the page because not only did it read like a non-neutral fan page, but it also read like a pretty big spam entry for the author. That sort of thing is fine for blogs, but not for Wikipedia. I've reverted back to my version because to be perfectly honest, the version you reverted to actually does more to make the page look non-notable and spammy than about a potentially notable person. I would like to caution you against making any such accusations in the future. My biggest concern so far is that all of the sources are predominantly local. Local coverage is always greatly depreciated because local news sources always have a vested interest in promoting someone local: it's good for business, whether the news coverage is negative or positive. As far as showing in lectures, broadcasts, or documentaries goes, those don't always translate to notability here on Wikipedia. Lectures almost never show notability unless the lecture has been covered in reliable sources that are independent of Green, the place holding the lecture, or anyone involved with the lecture. It's the same reason why most public speaking arrangements or musical concerts aren't the type that give notability, regardless of the venue or topic. Now when it comes to television appearances, sometimes those can give notability. Sometimes. If you can show where Green has been the focus of multiple television or radio spots that have focused on him (and not as someone they brought in for a 1-2 sentence "yes, this exists" trivial appearance), then this would help greatly towards notability. The one thing to be careful of is that you note what show he's appearing on. If it's a local channel then that gets depreciated for the same reasons as the newspapers. If his appearance is on a show that isn't really considered to be a reliable source, then that won't really count towards notability regardless of how well known the show is. For example, if Green were to appear on Coast to Coast AM, that wouldn't really be a good source for notability, even though the show is wildly popular. His appearance in or creation of documentaries can help notability, but only if the documentaries have received sustained coverage in reliable sources. If he was someone who appeared in the documentary, then the coverage must mention him to a reasonable extent. Just saying that he was in the documentary isn't enough. In any case, that's my biggest concern and while my current decision is weak delete based upon Green really only having local coverage, if you can show coverage in non-local and reliable sources, I'm willing to change my opinion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 6 November 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. Michig (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of podcatchers

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

Wikipedia is not a directory WP:NOTDIR. This is almost entirely a list of external links for items with no independent verification WP:V. Has been tagged with this concern for over 3 years. There's a small number of items that have their own WP pages that would comfortably fit at the bottom of the Podcast article. Marasmusine (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well... we can edit out the ones that don't have an article, and I'll do that now and see how many remain afterwards. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've removed the redundant mentions and the ones without articles, leaving us with 15 articles. At this point I'm not sure if this would be best served in the main podcast article, or if there's merit in other alternatives such as creating an article about the specific software called podcatchers that plays podcasts and listing that there, or creating a subcategory for podcatcher software and linking to that on the main article for podcasts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was considering this, but almost all those remaining aren't podcatchers per se, they are more generalized software that happen to support podcasts (WinAmp, Feedbooks etc). So we end up with a "List of software that has feature X", which I think is overly specific. Marasmusine (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried about that as well- I thought it might just be me, but I didn't exactly see iTunes as a podcatcher per se. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems useful enough and distinct enough as a list. The distinction between "podcatcher" and "software with podcast support" seems fairly pedantic and is a distinction without a difference. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into Podcast. I added a handful of sources. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you google "podcast downloaders" this is the only list that shows up (no 2 in search results} It has obvious merit. A lot of the podcasts mentioned are nowhere in the search results. People would not know they exist without this list. It provides a useful function. Just because a lot of them provide other services doesn't mean there aren't people out there would want them for podcasting only TUXLIE 22:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this kept somehow, but we have to have a reason other than "it's useful". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That this is the only list to show up is a reason not to keep it, since we are supposed to be a tertiary source. Marasmusine (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tom Morris. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 2 November 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. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander von Roon

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

I'm nominating this for deletion after seeing the related article The Manhattan Dating Project up for deletion. I cleaned this up with the hopes of finding notability, as the original version [10] did assert some notability by saying that he supposedly won an award. I can't really find any mention of him winning an award, so I'm going to assume that it's minor. None of his acting roles were particularly noteworthy, as they're all bit parts or uncredited. His director and producer work are equally non-notable by Wikipedia's standards for notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Manhattan Dating Project Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article's creator (whom I believe to be the manager of von Roon) had added several links to the article, which can be seen at this edit. The problem is that none of them can be used as a RS. Most of them are very unusable to show notability, as they're either links to a Weeds wikia about the episode he had a bit part in or they're articles written by von Roon. There was a link to the WP entry (and a mirror of said entry) about a college he attended, which lists him as a "notable alumni"... which means nothing, since anyone can add that and looks to have only been recently added by a newish editor with this edit. The only link that looks even slightly usable is this one and even that's fairly dodgy. Even if we accept it as a RS, that's only one source. The only source currently on the article is primary, as Backstage will frequently post articles about their members that "scored an interesting role recently thanks to a casting notice in Back Stage" and email them about it. It's essentially an advert for Backstage when you get down to it, since it's in their best interests to portray their member's success. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How's your German? All I managed to get was that there was something "by/from" von Roon a "Hollywood reporter". Was that piece written by him or by someone else (no author given) about him? Either way, I'm not quite convinced it's a reliable source. Stalwart111 06:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor, as my last class was years ago, but good enough that I can muddle through the basics with Google Translate. Looks like I did mistranslate, as this is actually by him rather than about him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About as good as mine then! Would be good to get a proper translation if anyone wandering past happens to be able to help out. But I think we're on the same page. Stalwart111 12:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own search brought up nothing that could be considered significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I would imagine his having produced 154 episodes of E! News over 6 years would be his most significant claim to fame followed by his having hosted 6 episodes of the same show and both of those claims are unverified. Unless someone can find something relevant, I can't see how he's going to pass WP:GNG. Stalwart111 08:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage in German is found. I was actually going to hold off voting and comment instead but after completing my analysis, I believe there's not much for a good article here. Indeed, my first Google News search found German links, which I don't speak. As usual, I found two DVD links here (French) and here (German, "Der rosarote Panther [DVD] - Review") for Bruno and Chuck respectively. For his one-time work for NCIS, I found these links (German as well). It's possible he may be a little more known in Germany, considering it seems he grew up there, but it doesn't even appear there may be enough for a German Wikipedia article (at least from my POV). After performing nearly 10 different searches at Google News, I found nothing else. I don't even think there's enough to support a merge/redirect somewhere even though E! News seems to be his most notable work. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 30 October 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. Michig (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Valley Lakes

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

Article about a set of lakes in Nebraska, some of which appear to be individually notable (e.g. Branched Oak Lake), but which doesn't appear to be notable as a collection. A Google search for ("salt valley lakes") turned up a number of passing references, but nothing that really discussed the lakes as a set (e.g. no history of the system, no discussion of common governance). Appears to fail GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search for the phrase "Salt Valley Lakes" showed many significant sources that demonstrate notability. I will add many to the article with additional information and see whether this is still a worthy AfD. • Freechildtalk 20:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common usage by state and federal government websites. --Green Cardamom (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:59, 1 November 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mudivu - A Tamil Short film

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

Unremarkable film. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG, WP:NF. No sources, etc. Mediran (t • c) 11:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now for failing WP:NFF and being far TOO SOON. Allow recreation if/when filming commences and if/when it receives the requisite coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:17, 12 October 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) 02:12, 19 October 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, BusterD (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. Article is almost nothing but speculation and anticipation. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF, also is a speculation of what will happen if this non notable project is complete. --Nlfestival (talk) 19:10, 26 October 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 redirect to Ted Kaczynski. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Power process

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

A fictional phenomenon made up by a criminal. I believe that by promoting a criminal's ideas, we are building a monument for him. Moreover, the notability of the "power process" has been doubted for more than two years and noone proved it. The page says that "The power process is much like Jon Elster's theory of self-realization" - if this is true, a redirect would be enough. Stilgar27 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent references to discuss the merits of the theory. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:12, 11 October 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, 19 October 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, BusterD (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a number of searches using different parameters (like including the proponent's name) didn't reveal anything by way of significant coverage. I certainly couldn't find anything to suggest this is a widespread or officially recognised theory. Stalwart111 08:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ted Kaczynski which discusses this in sufficient detail. It only received coverage in the context of Kaczynski, and isn't notable as a stand-alone theory. The argument that we're building a monument for a criminal is irrelevant: Wikipedia is not censored. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be comfortable with a redirect. Stalwart111 12:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes sense. A quick Google Scholar search for "'power process' kaczynski" does return some sources, but even if they proved to be significant he's certainly walking well-traveled ground. A search for "nietzsche kaczynski" returns more than 4 million hits, for example. (Power process might even be worth a short mention over at the will to power article, which seems to me the concept's closest theoretical relative). --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:08, 29 October 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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CHILL (library consortium)

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

Does not meet wiki's notability guidelines. LT90001 (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is only a stub article, but I would guess it is quite notable in making books available to students and researchers. I asm strengthened in this view by there being no obvious merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 14 October 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, 19 October 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, BusterD (talk) 04:45, 26 October 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 redirect to List of screen readers. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder (assistive technology)

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. LT90001 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of screen readers. I found a review article Comparing NonVisual Desktop Access and Thunder that looks reliable, but it is the only reliable source I have been able to find. Without multiple in-depth RS, the topic fails general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. But basic information about the screen reader is verifiable and 'Thunder assistive technology' is a reasonable search term. Per WP:PRESERVE, we should seek to preserve verifiable content, so I recommend a redirect to List of screen readers, where it is already listed. --Mark viking (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mark viking: did you check the sources already within the article? ([11], [12], [13]). Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have discussed these, too. ScreenReader.net is primary to the makers of Thunder themselves. The Communities in Control source is reliable and has three short paragraphs. The Living with Dyslexia source has one paragraph that looks a little promotional. The AAATE reference looks reliable and has one paragraph not primarily about Thunder. The review article I found and the Communities in Control source are multiple reliable sources, but the latter is marginally in depth at best. My sense is that this topic is not quite notable, but if the consensus was keep, I could see their point of view. If other in-depth RS show up, I'll be happy to reconsider my recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 19:56, 12 October 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) 01:21, 19 October 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, BusterD (talk) 04:43, 26 October 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. KTC (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Economics and Business Studies Competitions

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

No assertion of notability. No notability in general. Puffery at worst. Qwerty Binary (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone appears to have mistaken Wikipedia for a web host. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems this competition has been going since 2005, so a bit odd. It's not referenced by anything substantial, but clearly a going concern with some vague reference to it from some educational institutions. One year was sponsored by Price Waterhouse Coopers. Bit of a tricky one!

Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be that as it may, does not then (or nevertheless) suggest that this is not adequately, if indeed at all, notable, or that it fails to qualify as being adequately notable? I see this to fail most, if not all, of the criteria for general notability. Thoughts? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies for this; but, it has come to my attention that the account that created the article in question is a single-purpose account and, further, is owned by one of the previous co-ordinators of the Competition. This user may have a vested interest in the creation and retention of this page (and having his or her name on a piece of this part of the Web), and it is appreciable that there is potential for a conflict of interest. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:19, 27 October 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) 01:06, 19 October 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, BusterD (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing in NLA Trove, one of the best news databases for Australia. Generic Google search finds almost nothing as well. This is a new initiative it needs more time to establish notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:41, 6 November 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 merge to Thurmaston. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thurmaston Shopping Centre

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

Small shopping centre with no indication of WP:notability. The only relevant reference is to a small local paper story. Other refs are either to the developer or the store that existed on this site before. This was previously nominated and userfied. As it has been put back in main space with no substantial changes, nominating again. noq (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Davey. Wikipedia is not a retail guide.--Charles (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thurmaston#Facilities, as it's probably important to the local area but lacks the sources that would be needed for a separate article. This has been moved to user space and back twice without improvement; if done again the discussion should be allowed to reach a conclusion. Peter James (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thurmaston -- we do not allow articles on shopping malls, except the very largest. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 21 October 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, BusterD (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Thurmaston. There's very little here work keeping but a little more detail in the Thurmaston article wouldn't hurt. --Michig (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Thurmaston - Looks more like a directory than anything else. aycliffe^talk 08:48, 4 November 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. Sanya3, please ask if you would like the text userfied so that you can work on it. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Chorale

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

Non-notable chorale lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article references are minor mentions or listings. Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep. Notable choir, giving multiple concerts to thousands of people. Official concert description by an independent concert hall is independent and reliable. If you are doubting the quality of performance or the number of people in attendance, just watch the external link provided.--Sanya3 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Just because something is popular in the real world does not make it notable by Wikipeda standards. Please review WP:NMUSIC and tell us how the group meets the standards for notability.reddogsix (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It meets criteria 1, 4 and 7. I will try to find better sources soon.--Sanya3 (talk) 02:08, 18 October 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, BusterD (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON; the chorale is only three years old. I'm sure it is popular and people enjoy it, but the criterion for an article here is significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and I couldn't find ANY coverage at Google News Archive. A sentence could be added to the article Sacramento, California#Music but I would not advise a redirect; the name is too generic. --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references are there. I have found a link to a Fox 40 video from Sacramento. A Slavic Chorale concert is covered in the second half of the video. [14]--Sanya3 (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it meets NMUSIC, it needs the sources to prove it. I also looked around for a while, but found nothing. If solid sources exist off-line, they still need to be added. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are print sources as well, for example there were several articles in the Slavic Observer. It is a Russian-language source, so I am not sure how to quote it. Do I just translate the title or give the original? I also found this review of their Rachmaninov concert on October 26, 2013.[15]--Sanya3 (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article from the Russian magazine "International Affairs" covering the recent Rachmaninov concert: http://interaffairs.ru/read.php?item=10166

I just did a web search for "Slavic Observer" and the first result was this Wikipedia article, so I'm reluctant to accept it as being a significant source. Do you have any verifiable info on how significant this newspaper is? The Sacramento Choral Calendar link is extremely specific in focus. It's hard to imagine that such a website wouldn't have info on this chorale. International Affairs is a news-organ of the Russian state. That wouldn't matter, except that the concert was apparently partly funded by the Russian Consulate? That's what it looks like, anyway. Beyond that, the article is mostly a letter from one of the organizers of the concert. It's basically a press-release, and is too WP:PRIMARY to be useful, in my opinion. The video link above is mostly about the mansion that a particular concert was held at, and is otherwise a concert-listing on a local morning news show. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 3 November 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. --BDD (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loudflower

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

Does not meet WP:BAND although they almost meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loudflower released or was included in three releases from significant independent label grey dot records (now reflected with a Discography section), included a member who would later join notable band Drivin N Cryin, and was also part of a lawsuit in which the band sued its record label, forming a separate corporation in order to do so. It is questionable whether the article meets WP:BAND under criterion 5, but the sum total of the article certainly meets WP:GNG. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that being included on compilation recordings counted toward notability and that blogs were RSes that counted toward notability. How foolish of me. What we have for sources is a RS review, a press release from the band's label, a blog, and the result of a legal settlement. Only the first counts. That's why I nominated them. Please read the guidelines again since they don't meet GNG or BAND. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm aside, you bring up valid points, which I am more than happy to address. First, I was not including the compilation towards criterion 5 of BAND, and I had already acknowledged that whether the full album and EP together qualified as notable was questionable. Second, I find it unusual that you wouldn't consider the results of legal proceedings to be a RS; I would think court records are reasonably reliable. Finally, I agree that the article needs more references, and I have a list of several that I am currently tracking down. (two from 7ball, one from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, one from HM, and an entry in The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music), but unfortunately none of them have online editions from the late 1990s, so I'm having to find print copies to cite. Would the inclusion of those RSes meet your standards? - Brother Bulldog (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a great many lawsuits and their existence is not confirmation of notability. If the issue is that the suit existed, the settlement would suffice. To confirm notability, not so much.

Feature articles in the music magazines would count toward notability. Reviews wouldn't. Feature articles from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution would be great, but fluff pieces that discuss the band's upcoming tours or a recent performance at a local club wouldn't. Non-trivial coverage is the key here.

The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music (Powell) has a half-column entry on the band. Just after the two-and-a-half page entry on the Lost Dogs, and just before the three-quarter-column entry on Love Coma and one-column entry on Darlene Love. Not all entries in that tome are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. For instance, over the next few pages we see the same size entries for Lovewar, Luit-Kriss, [[:Claire Lynch], and Windy Lyre. Non-trivial coverage is the key here as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I notice you also nominated Love Coma for deletion, on very similar grounds, and that article was retained due to no consensus. I will step out of this conversation, and simply state that, if an article could arguably be notable, I would prefer to see Wikipedia err on the side of caution regarding deletions. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I've also !voted delete (and lost) on similar bands before, but WP:OSE has never been an argument that sits well with me, so I'm back. All the coverage I can find in WP:RSes is WP:ROUTINE, and any non-routine coverage I can find is not in a RS. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:25, 15 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:48, 16 October 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, BusterD (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:20, 1 November 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 redirect to Sosumi. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Reekes

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

Utterly non-notable programmer. No in-depth coverage of this individual to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG, only passing mentions of creating a sound for Apple WP:BLP1E and a few interviews about this. Nothing beyond passing mentions, references to this article in media, and unreliable sources about the man. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to provide evidence subject is notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up nothing useful. All I found were lots of trivial mentions and WP:PRIMARY interviews. Msnicki (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sosumi. He is discussed in many online sources but also in history books. For example The Apple Revolution (Random House 2012), Apple Confidential 2.0 (No Starch Press 2004). His name is out there and people will want to link to it and find it and we have enough sourcing to discuss in the Sosumi article. I believe he is a significant creative, but the sources don't have it yet covered beyond the Sosumi story, which is not enough to build a full biography article with. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This presumes that article survives its own AfD. Msnicki (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that one should be Kept, per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [16] and [17] and a general cultural frenzy for anything having to do with Apple. ~KvnG 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB only offers a one-line confirmation that he appeared in a documentary along with a lot of other people; that's a trivial mention. The second source is a blog entry that merely reprints the subject's own remarks verbatim; even if this was a reliable source (it's not) it's still WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I haven't watched the documentary. What leads you to believe his appearance is trivial? Boing Boing is an online magazine, not a blog. It is certainly not self published. I consider it reliable. There is a bit more to the article than the direct remarks. ~KvnG 16:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say his appearance was trivial, I said the one-line entry in IMDB is trivial. His appearance might be a big part of the documentary. But all of that is WP:PRIMARY, it's him giving his own opinions. It's possible that documentary includes lots of other people talking about Reekes not the Macintosh, but that sounds unlikely and, even if true, would invite closer inspection whether any of it's really WP:INDEPENDENT. Msnicki (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am considering the documentary, not IMDB, to be the source. I don't understand how a documentary would be considered WP:PRIMARY for the purposes of establishing notability. The filmmakers considered Reekes notable enough to interview for a film about personalities at Apple. I consider that WP:SIGNIFICANT. ~KvnG 20:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the difference.
From WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."
And from WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."
I hope that's helpful. Msnicki (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film is made by a couple independent filmmakers. There's no indication that it is produced by or commissioned by Apple or Jim Reekes. It does quote information from primary sources as any good secondary source does but those excerpts are edited and put into context by the filmmakers. As is clear from the WP policy you've quoted, this is what secondary sources do. I've discovered that the film is available on YouTube (you'll have to search for Welcome to MacIntosh yourself as WP won't allow me to put YouTube links on this page. Definitely looks like a secondary source to me. Let me know if you don't agree. ~KvnG 23:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not agree. This is an insider's account of his own involvement in the story. That's about as WP:PRIMARY as it gets. See above. To argue otherwise, you need to provide evidence that some substantial part of the documentary is really about Reekes himself, not merely adding his first hand account to the Macintosh story. Msnicki (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG actually does not require secondary sources, only sources independent of the topic. In any case, Reekes has no connection to the documentary, he is independent of its production and marketing. It's like if someone gave a quote to a journalist writing a newspaper article, that quote would be notable. Or if a journalist wrote a magazine article, or book, about Reekes based in part on interviews with Reekes. It's no different with a documentary. The producers and directors have full editorial control and can include/exclude content, make Reekes look any way they want. It's not a work by Reekes, it's a work about Reekes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite correct. From WP:GNG, ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." (emphasis added)
And from WP:BASIC, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (emphasis added)
The exceptions are the cases identified in WP:ANYBIO, where there's evidence of notability in lieu of sources. This is not one of those cases. But also, there is a difference between including a clip of Reekes telling his story and the documentary offering any secondary opinion of him or what he's said. That's missing.
At this point, I'm going to let it rest. The closing moderator should certainly be capable of resolving questions of what the guidelines ask of us and I'm satisfied I have this right. Msnicki (talk) 00:51, 12 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:22, 16 October 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, BusterD (talk) 04:20, 26 October 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. KTC (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Foroughi Bastami

AfDs for this article:

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

Still dubious notability at best, very little sourcing found. Last AFD closed as "no consensus" after two relists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear of the notability as a lot of the references maybe in local language, at this point does not meet WP:GNG in all public english referenceable sources. --Nlfestival (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the first AfD I looked for sources in English and Farsi. Google Books comes up with no scholarly notice. The two sources in the article are unreliable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:09, 27 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of species in Magic: The Gathering

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot details unnecessary to understand the main topic of Magic: the Gathering. It lacks real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish notability. Such detail is more suited to Wikia, and anything discussing these elements can describe them in the relevant text. TTN (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think this is also WP:FANCRUFT. epzik8 20:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good for a fan wiki, inappropriate for WP. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This needs trimming and sourcing, however as a group this squeaks past the notability bar for inclusion. Individually none (or very very few) of these would have any sort of notability, however the main concerns of the nominator here are issues for cleanup, not deletion, and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the out-of-universe importance of species of MtG outside of that being a game mechanic (eg cards with abilities to affect cards of specific species)? --MASEM (t) 14:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "discussing them in the relevant text", as suggested by the nominator, would require sufficient coverage in toto to require a WP:SPINOUT...which, well, here we are. It's also WP:CONSENSUS that lists like this are in fact appropriate; see for instance List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters and Ultra Monsters. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep, and both examples are ones I would consider for deletion as well. Particularly here, this is bordering on WP:GAMEGUIDE; the reader's understanding of MTG as a whole (the game or universe) is not lost if we remove this species list, since it is otherwise a typical fantasy setting and the species only has a small game mechanic effect. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that it's not a reason to keep, however it does provide an indiciation as to what sort of articles are generally considered acceptable. You know, recently there was a big brouhaha over this at ANI, and the accusation was made that there is a movement on Wikipedia to merge non-notable things like individual species and character articles for fictional properties to lists like this one, under the grounds (as is consensus and accepted practice) that while they're not notable individually, they're pefectly acceptable as part of a list - and then to attempt to delete the list so as to "purge" Wikipedia of the "non-notable fictional property". I scoffed at that there - except, now, I'm seeing it in action, with this and other perfectly reasonable lists being thrown under the AfD bus because some editors don't like it, and the fact that Wikipedia is not paper and shouldn't be treated like it is, and that WP:V is policy while WP:N is just a guideline that (as a guideline) can be expected to have perfectly reasonable exceptions, got forgotten somewhere along the way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure where to start in looking for reliable sources. The Bushranger, do you have any ideas? That said, we do have "list of character" articles all the time for large series/franchises. MtG is pretty darn big and this is pretty much as high a level as you could get. weak keep for now. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunatly MtG is not my main area of gaming interest (my knowledge is basically WP:ITEXISTS, alas). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 17 October 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I could be swayed if reliable coverage is shown to exist.LM2000 (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—appears to lack reliable outside sources that would make it pass WP:GNG. N2e (talk) 19:36, 3 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y Centauri

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this article was incorrectly linked from List of stars in Centaurus, so I fixed it with this edit. If there was more notability (I could not find any) I would have suggested merging it to that list, even as a redlink. FWIW, its SIMBAD entry is here. -84user (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's nothing especially significant about this star and it fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what was wrong with the link from List of stars in Centaurus, and why isn't there a new link? As for WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG, there are three independent sources in the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars in Centaurus used to have a link to y Centauri (magnitude 10 to 8.9), but all the properties in the table row were from HD 120987, a different, brighter, star of magnitude 5.53. I suppose a new entry could be added for this one, assuming it survives deletion. -84user (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally about "y Centauri" (HD 120987), until it was rebuilt to be about "Y Centauri" (HD 127233). If this is deleted, it should become a setindex article, like other Latin-letter Bayer designations. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title is still a valid redirect for HD 120987 ("y Centauri"), so if "Y Centauri" is not notable, we still have the article "y Centauri" ; and we have the confusing target "γ Centauri". So either this should be a redirect, or it should be a set index, if it isn't about the star. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a redirect, as that would imply to the readers that Y Centauri (this star) is the same star as HD 120987 (y Centauri), which it is not. A set index disambig page would be fine though. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is perfectly valid, y Centauri works. A set index is preferable, but the redirect is fine, since at the very most {{R from typo}} are common on Wikipedia, and it isn't a typo, since Wikipedia treats all first letters the same regardless of case. We even have a {{lower case}} to indicate iPod -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made this a separate article, because the redirect was very confusing and Wikipedia has trouble distinguishing between names that start with lower and upper case, as in this case they are different stars. Apart from being variable, the special feature of this star is the 22 GHz water masar emission. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 10 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than simple database entry; perfectly encyclopedic and clear-cut article with information gathered from multiple neutral, reliable sources, meets the spirit of our notability guidelines. --cyclopia^speak! 13:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth is this more than a database article? To me, this appears to be the very definition of repeating a database entry as an article. Every single fact in this article could easily be found on an astronomy database such as SIMBAD with no further research necessary. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of variable stars. I just spent nearly about 30 minutes examining the given sources, plus another 38 provided by SIMBAD. Many (if not most) of the papers given by SIMBAD were "false readings" of the object in the papers. There's one paper (noted in the article) that provides a water maser detection using IRAS (an old infrared mission). That paper notes that no corroboration of that detection exists, unlike many of the others. In fact, many of the other sources list this object among dozens of others in searches for the water feature, and this was listed multiple times merely in "non-detection". There's nothing encyclopedic to build here as a stand alone article, but the information we have should be retained in the variable star list article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's what I'm finding as well with many of these single-letter variable designations; they are often getting misread from other stars such as the lowercase Bayer designations. I think it is probably worth having a footnote in WP:NASTRO explaining this when looking for sources; namely, that there are very often false positives. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I found that too, and that confusion is why the article is there, as something to attach hat notes to. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, we don't keep articles just due to hatnote purposes. For that purpose, it would be possible to either make this page a Set Index article, or to eliminate this page altogether and make the hatnote at the top read something like: "this article is about the star 'y Centauri' (with a lowercase y)". StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:19, 20 October 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What would this article look like if it was a {{Set index article}} and how would it help avoid the confusing conversion of lowercase y to uppercase Y? Would it be the same name with a list of two items, the first being HD 120987, the second being the non-articled star HD 127233? What would the hatnotes for the two other star articles be changed to? I'm trying to get a handle on which would be better: a redirect to HD 120987 (ie y Centauri), a setindex, or just keep it (exceptionally) to minimise confusion. -84user (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not paper was one of the founding concepts of Wikipedia. The mass deletions of astronomy articles is tantamount to a topic genocide. Fotaun (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HD 120987 (y Cen, notable as a visible star), and modify the hatnote there explaining the uppercase/lowercase confusion. Y Cen (the uppercase one) doesn't appear to be notable. With only two articles to choose from, one of which is non-notable, a hatnote seems a better solution than a disambiguation page or set index article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 31 October 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. Michig (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ātmaprajñānanda Saraswati

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

I'm completing the nomination for IP user 117.227.149.50, who says that this article looks like an advertisement. I have no personal opinion on this article at this point in time, this is a procedural completion of the nom. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep meets and passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP. --Nlfestival (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BLP is irrelevant, and you haven't shown anything that suggests it meets GNG, let alone passes it. And 'strong' is inappropriate here. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found on web sources. I should be delighted to be proved wrong. Maybe something in paper literature. The article is written in Babu English but that is no reason to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as failing WP:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The article has been bombarded with citations, but in going through them systematically all links are either dead, or lead to the subject's website, or blog (with some of the latter being mislabeled as belonging to "Times of India"). The subject has authored two books but apart from the listing on the publisher's website/booksellers I found no information on them and no library seems to carry either according to worldcat; one is listed on the Gyan Publishers (notorious on WP:RS/N for plagiarizing content from wikipedia) website which may indicate that it is essentially self-published. Abecedare (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep meets and passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Both the books ware found in OCLC WorldCat , Amazon.com. links areNomenclature of the Vedas Rsikas of the Rgveda.--Aniha990 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He published two books but nobody has noted them. Can you supply library holdings? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Aniha990 has convinced me that this author doesn't pass our guidelines for notability. You need more than having your books published in a catalog, and Gyan is also a warning light. Search doesn't show anything up that meets our criteria and neither of the !keep voters, both saying the same thing, have found anything or seem to understand our guidelines here. Not surprising as they are either new or have only a handful of edits (Aniha990 having created Ärsha Vidya Sannyasi Disciples which seems to be a BLP list.) Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable secondary source Canadiancow1 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Janwar rajputs

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

Unremarkable tribe/clan with no ref for the article Martinian ^{Leave a message!} 21:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 October 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) 03:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears notable. I have removed the unsourced text and added some references.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:10, 18 October 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) 00:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG, the references cited do not have any details on the subject, and more over the reference cited is a non credible source. --Nlfestival (talk) 20:43, 26 October 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. KTC (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BodyKom

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. LT90001 (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be only commercial PR puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search reveals a number of secondary sources. The article as it stands is terrible, but that's a reason for improvement, not deletion. PianoDan (talk) 15:37, 15 October 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) 03:42, 18 October 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) 00:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets notability criteria for inclusion. Added some reliable sources to the EL section of the article. ~KvnG 17:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG, although perhaps not by a gigantic margin (at least per sources available online); see the article for some sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:20, 4 November 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. --BDD (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeehouse (event)

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

Very bare-bones article. Lacks verifiable references. Appears to constitute Original Research. IrishStephen (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a well-documented happening. See WP:BEFORE, please. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 15 October 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) 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources listed don't discuss the subject of this article, which is supposed to be an event'"Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This about a specific type of social gathering, like articles on Hootenanny, Stammtisch, Salon (gathering), Potluck, House concert, and Basement show. These are good articles for exploring low-key American social life. As an article it could always have more, but it makes the bare case that they notably existed.__Elaqueate (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While you are correct about OR here the lack of notable references does not mean it is not notable. Mike (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A coffee house is a place, not an event.Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A coffee house IS an event, in New England. See external link http://www.bostoncoffeehouses.org/Feature/Feature.html, an organization of almost 50 Massachusetts self-described "coffeehouses." Agreed, the article needs work. 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As this stands, I am not seeing reliable references for this to pass WP:GNG. I agree with the OP that it looks like OR, unless evidence of N can be presented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 30 October 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 redirect to IBM Tivoli Storage Manager. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Tivoli Storage Manager FastBack

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

Googling it does not yield many third-party independent reliable sources (mainly product manuals or other insignificant coverage). Article as written is highly promotional, so if an article were possible, it would have to be written from scratch. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 October 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) 00:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or could have probably done a bold redirect to IBM Tivoli Storage Manager, since it appears to be just a feature of that technology positioned as a separate "product". Clearly not independently notable. Just a litany of features with no citations whatsoever. W Nowicki (talk) 23:51, 29 October 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 redirect to Upendra (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPENDRA 2

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

Film is not yet notable enough to have a stand alone article, was recently PRODed at Upendra 2 BOVINEBOY2008 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOO SOON. Bad form to simply capitalize the article name to get around the earlier speedy of a film article, but as the topic of the planned sequel "Upendra 2" is searchable and sourcable, I have just restored and then redirected the earlier earlier title to Upendra (film)#Sequel. We can allow undeletion/recreation once this sequel begins filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops It does seem as this sequel has begun filming last August.[18] I will look into properly expanding the earlier version. This one can go. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:32, 18 October 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) 00:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Upendra this subject on its own does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFF, no credible references, the same person is the producer, actor and director of this movie that is in production and the first movie as well. but as a part of reference in Upendra this could be added as a line that a sequql is in the works, if this sequel gains notoriety on its own then a separate page in future can be started --Nlfestival (talk) 20:46, 26 October 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 redirect to Nawal Al Zoghbi. I have IAR'd on this one a bit. It's unclear whether it's a copyvio, but it doesn't contain any sources whatsoever so I have redirected back to the artist's article per WP:MUSIC Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Ainah

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

I suspect that this is a copyright violation. As a Wikipedia article, the text looks a bit messy: it looks as if someone has taken a short portion of a text out of its context. I found that the beginning of the article appears here as part of a much longer text, but the last sentence is not there. In the longer text, I think that the text fits much better to the context, so I suspect that our article is a copyright violation of that website. However, the Waybackmachine suggests that we started hosting the text before the other website started hosting this text. Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 11 October 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) 15:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, here is the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6fhgv-GT58 , seems like quite a major production. Googling [19] gives some 16,100 hits. --Soman (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about whether the article is notable but whether it is a copyright violation. If the article is a copyright violation but still notable, then we would have to delete the current article, but without restrictions on writing a new article on the same subject. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 19 October 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) 00:26, 26 October 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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intershipping

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

The article does not state any reason this company is notable to be included in Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to say keep, the subject of the article operates several large ships and that should probably count as notable. The article is in its infancy, but it is reasonably plausible that somebody might search the web for information on this this company. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 October 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) 15:13, 18 October 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) 00:24, 26 October 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. --BDD (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Duffy (baseball)

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

Minor league baseball player who has had little success and is now in independent baseball. Had some minor recognition as a college player but college baseball all-americans arent inherently notable and the sources in the article are all of the routine variety.. Not enough for GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, I guess~~- I found a few sources in my search for him, but they were mainly related to him signing with the Camden Riversharks, and were not solely about him, as they noted the signing of three others – very routine coverage. Other than that, pretty scant, and probably not passing WP:GNG and definitely not passing WP:BASEBALL/N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talk • contribs) 20:30, October 9, 2013

Weak keep - per Jrcla2; though the awards listed in the CFB award table to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:NCOLLATH, I suppose it is transferrable to baseball. As such, I change my !vote to weak keep. Go Phightins! 17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't grant your premise that consensus college baseball All-Americans are not inherently notable,Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_11#College_baseball_All-Americans really only reached a consensus that non-consensus All-Americans are not and seems to have split pretty evenly on the remaining question. Regardless, his college and minor league accomplishments, or lack thereof in regard to minor league, were recognized by a variety of different sources. Mizzou415 (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question If all consensus All-Americans should have pages, why is there a red link on the template on Duffy's page? – Muboshgu (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Because not everyone sufficiently notable to have a wikipedia page has one already. Mizzou415 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - We're talking about a guy who holds Conference USA records for batting average and slugging percentage etc. same conference as major schools like Memphis, Alabama, etc. Multiple sources are pretty clear and accurate. Minor success in college? I oppose that too, he was First-Team All American in every major category as well top 5 golden spikes finalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassmfs (talk • contribs) 03:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I disagree that being selected first team All-America by three of the four recognized selectors and a finalist for the top amateur player in the country award only qualifies as minor recognition. I see multiple feature articles on him from multiple sources. Billcasey905 (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These "multiple feature articles" you mention arent in the article... the only sources there are small articles that just mention him being nominated for awards or being involved in a transaction but don't have any indepth coverage, his college bio, and an interview he did with a Phillies blog... I don't see any substantial coverage. Spanneraol (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This aired on the MLB network, covering him as one of the finalist. You can also find this on the MLB website. http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=9913163&topic_id=12242402 here's another link http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=502008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassmfs (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just not nearly enough secondary coverage to justify an article for a 26th rounder whose never played above single-A. Kithira (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a consensus first team All-American, hardly a "minor" achievement. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that as well, but could not find a relevant guideline or policy to call that grounds for meeting notability requirements. It's not in WP:BASEBALL/N ... is it somewhere? Go Phightins! 15:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCOLLATH – #1, #3. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:13, 14 October 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) 15:14, 18 October 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) 00:23, 26 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Khamis

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:NPOL (local official). I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the local area. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. City councillors are not generally held to be notable. If he was the first Arab-American councillor in the country then that might be notable, but not in one city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All we have is coverage of his being sworn in. We generally avoid creating articles on "firsts" unless we have widespread coverage. In this case that would mean non-local coverage of the fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past WP:OUTCOMES. While San Jose, California is a large city, it is not in the same category as London or Chicago. I'd be willing to change my mind if others would go along with keeping all the members of the San Jose City Council. Please, convince me. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I am convinced by Neil and Cullen's comments below. Keep. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPOL is a supplement to the general standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," so I looked at the sources and found multiple in-depth articles primarily about Khamis (one heuristic: his name's in all the titles) in the San Jose Mercury News ([20] [21] [22][23] [24][25]) and the Contra Costa Times ([26]), plus plenty of coverage in articles not entirely about him (for example, 49 hits for his name in Mercury-News news articles alone). So I think it's a clear keep.—Neil 06:57, 16 October 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) 15:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep San Jose is a city of regional importance, by far the largest city in Northern California, and the tenth largest city in the United States. No one seems to doubt the notability of members of an equivalent body, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors which governs a city that is significantly smaller in population. We have biographies of all current and many past members of that body. Although I would challenge notability of city council members in smaller cities that are not of regional importance, in this case, we have significant coverage of the person in reliable sources, some of them many miles away from San Jose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In this case, I agree with your conclusion, but I don't really get the point of debating how much notability different boards and councils confer on their members. Does it really save any time? It didn't take me long to assess the sources and form a direct opinion about this article, and since I listed what I found, others don't have to duplicate the work. And does it make discussions easier? Would we delete someone with significant, independent coverage just because most Peoria City Councillors aren't notable? Would we keep someone without it just because most San Francisco Supervisors are? I wouldn't think so, but otherwise I don't feel there's much point to adding another layer of policy. —Neil 08:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I am not proposing any policy language, Neil, but I do believe that assessing the significance of the city in question is one of several tools we can use to determine whether a city council member is notable enough to have a biography here. I thank you for finding solid coverage in reliable sources for this person. And I challenge the assertion by another editor above implying that city council members are somehow generally assumed to be not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were going rogue or anything like that! I was just surprised to see most of the debate here dealing with the importance of San Jose City Council rather than the sources about Khamis, and out of curiosity I singled you out, probably unfairly, to ask about the rationale for it. Thanks for the reply! —Neil 07:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that we shouldn't have articles on every member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it wasn't clear from the article as nominated, he does appear to be notable. I have expanded the article and added half a dozen references. For a councilmember from a city of this size and significance, there usually turns out to be enough independent coverage to support notability, and that is the case here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found any independent coverage beyond local news coverage? Local news coverage does not strike me as "significant coverage." TJRC (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercury-News is a regional paper covering a huge swath of California. To dismiss its coverage of a San Jose city councilman as "local" would be like dismissing the New York Times when it reports about a politician from New York. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 1 November 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) 00:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to San Jose City Council. The only grain of notability is his position as a San Jose city council member. That position is not inherently notable. Being the first Arab-American in a non-notable position does not make him any more notable; nor does being the CEO/founder of a non-notable corporation. I suspect that most SJ council members do not meet notability standards, either, with a possible exception being Madison Nguyen, due to her recall election. The arguments for Keep boil down to one of two arguments.

First: that San Jose City Council is notable (based on the size and economic prominence of San Jose), and that therefore individual council members are also notable. I don't buy that. I agree that the council itself is notable, but I disagree that members inherently inherit that notability; WP:NOTINHERITED. (I would also argue the same for individual members of equivalent positions on equivalent local government bodies, including San Francisco Board of Supervisors, so that does not persuade me.) If Khamis loses his next election, I don't think anyone would consider him notable; for perspective, consider Larry Pegram who was a San Jose council member in the 1980s. I don't think anyone could muster a serious claim for his present notability; and if notability is not temporary, then he's at least as notable as Khamis is now.

Second: that he's had a lot of news coverage in the local news papers San Jose Mercury News and Contra Costa Times (which is another local paper, that is co-owned with and shares stories with SJMN; the CCT article cited above is actually just one more SJMN article: [27]); however every member—heck, every candidate—for a local city council gets news coverage in the local papers. That does not make them notable; WP:NOTNEWS. There appears to be no coverage of Khamis outside of the local news.

I would limit coverage of these council members to a one- or two-sentence description of each current member in the article on the council itself; and individual articles only where there is independent indicia of notability apart from mere membership in the council. TJRC (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I haven't seen any coverage of Khamis outside of San Jose–specific publications (by the way, the Mercury News has a circulation above 500,000—that seems more "regional" than "local" to me). But you seem to believe that Wikipedia shouldn't cover topics notable only to people from San Jose. I disagree; if the topic meets the general notability guideline (which says nothing about "local sources"), I'm all for it. I suspect we have a fundamental difference of opinion there.

Also, since you brought up that notability is not temporary, that guideline actually says "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage"...it does not need to have ongoing coverage." To me, that means we should include Larry Pegram, not exclude Johnny Khamis. —Neil 00:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Neil P. Quinn here. The Mercury News transcends "local coverage", and San Jose is the largest city in Northern California, and therefore it is highly likely that its council members are notable. The sources cited prove the notability. The notion of "independent indicia" outside the political career is without merit in my view. That's like saying we shouldn't have a biography of a movie star or a baseball player without "independent indicia" of notability apart from coverage about merely acting in movies or merely playing ball games. People are notable for their accomplishments. How could it be otherwise? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep San Jose is a city of regional prominence. The Mercury News transcends "local coverage." Enos733 (talk) 21:21, 5 November 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. Poorly sourced BLP. WJBscribe (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Levinson

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

Levinson was a run of the mill child actor from age 10 to 15. He never really had a leading role, his role in "Matilda" was the closest, but it was pretty far down, and we generally want people to have had 2 substantial roles in major films, he just barely, maybe, almost had one. He has done nothing in the last 16 years of any note, and what he did previously as a run of the mill child actor was not really enough to pass the notability threshold. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 18 October 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 October 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 18 October 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) 00:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is void of RSes, or or even any unreliable sources. A search brings up some same name individuals but next no nothing on the subject of article; there's more about a Jeopardy winner from NYC whose apartment burned down then there is about this former child actor. Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD media player

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

This unreferenced article is a fork of set-top box with an imaginary or very uncommon title. (As far as I am aware, an "HD media player" is a "high-definition media player", not what this article thinks.) I wouldn't say "no" to a merge with set-top box article, but what can be possibly be merged? Codename Lisa (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:54, 26 October 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) 15:29, 18 October 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) 00:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and take a close look at similar/related pages such as Net-connected media player, Digital media receiver, List of streaming media systems, Comparison of streaming media systems, Web television, Web-to-TV and Webcast. Perhaps we can merge them into two or three comprehensive articles. As for the term "hard disk media player", the Netgear NTV550 "Ultimate HD Media Player" is a commonly used streamere, and it doesn't have a hard disk -- the HD stands for high definition. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – HD could stand for hemodialysis, high density, … and above all Harley-Davidson!!! Seriously, it also refers to high-definition and hard drive/hard disk.
A HD Media Player (HDMP), with "HD" referring to "hard drive", is a mini/micro-computer that stores digital media files and/or streams to a hard drive (or other non-volatile data storage devices) and, through an audio/video output, it can also play these media files to a TV/monitor/projection screen and etcetera. Some of them have a display monitor and loudspeaker[s] to extend their playback capabilities (and making them "portable"). It is an extended (in media types and formats) VCR/VTR, and, more recently, DVD recorder/DVR. Note that the presence of a hard drive makes it necessarily a recorder.
It could also refer to a player capable of playing High-definition video with 720 scan lines or more, but it is better to refer to them as "HD-Media" (with "high-definition-media" that being one word).
In both cases it is not a DMR, which is more a hub with multiple input/output (I/O) ports, and is comparable, on its input side, to our old, but always beautiful, analog radio receivers, and to UHF and VHF "aerial" TV and cable/satellite receivers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any references for this usage? I haven't heard the term "HDMP" Andrevan@ 21:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This area of coverage needs improved organization. Deleting stray bits and pieces is not going to help. Editors need time to sort this out. Consider a merge to Media server. ~KvnG 17:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for the following reasons:
1. No source – Not even one source is present in the article
2. Lack of notability – Does not conform to WP:GNG
3. Neologism – Articles on neologism are not allowed. I have never seen the word "HD media player" used for anything. "HD", when comes with "media player", always means high-definition. So, if I describe User:Pjoef's statement above as "BS", are you willing to assume good faith and think that perhaps I meant "beyond smart" or "beautiful statement"? I am not going to bet my life on it.
4. Fake info – I tested some of the items listed in the article, such as "GoFlex TV (STAJ100)", "Seagate Freeagent" and several "Eminent". They were HD, alright, but the company website made it clear that they are HD as in "high definition" not as in "having hard disk".
5. Spacer filler by nature – If you disregard the title and lead, what do you get? Some content that, if had source, was a candidate for any modern media player article, be it hardware or software. For example, read HD media player § Market niche. You can imagine it is put in Windows Media Player article. Or read HD media player § Formats, resolutions and file systems. Could be part of any notable set-top box article.

Fleet Command (talk) 12:26, 6 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Star (Johnson & Häggkvist song)

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

Though the PROD was removed from this article after references were added, I continue to agree with the {{notability}} tag from February 2011. We now have confirmation that the song charted in Sweden, but there's still no evidence of meeting WP:NSONG, such as coverage in multiple, non-trivial sources. Normally we'd want to redirect this sort of thing, but since it's not from an album is a duet by two artists, I think we'll just have to let this one go. --BDD (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not notable, it could be redirected to Carola Häggkvist#2005–present: Return to contest (where there's already information about the song) or merged with One Love (Johnson & Häggkvist song), which it was put with on the CD single (reference: AllMusic) for a new article, either as Johnson & Häggkvist or One Love/Lucky Star. The article has existed for five years, and it's better to have a redirect than a red link, and I agree that with multiple possible targets it's sometimes better to delete (such as a non-notable person mentioned in articles about unrelated events), but in this case the information can easily be found either in the target article or in obvious places via links between the artists and to the discographies. Peter James (talk) 19:52, 10 October 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) 15:30, 18 October 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) 00:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - song charted, entered Melodifestivalen, a duet between two of Swedens most recognizable singers. Notable to me. Needs expansion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NSONG, though as Peter James states a redirect might be the best thing. Mentoz86 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 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. WJBscribe (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last Stand (Adelitas Way 2010 song)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. This is the third article created by the same editor that is non-notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me}

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a non-notable song as I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources for it. Gong show 16:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adelitas Way. WJBscribe (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Iorio

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Has not been the subject of any significant works that I could find in my Google search. He is mentioned occasionally in books and articles about the band though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 18 October 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) 00:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adelitas Way, the band of which he was a member, per WP:MUSICBIO: "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". Gong show 16:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gongshow as valid redirect. --Michig (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WJBscribe (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticize (Adelitas Way song)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 18 October 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) 00:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to see here. Just redirect to Home School Valedictorian. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band itself does not even seem to be notable. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WJBscribe (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alive (Adelitas Way song)

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

http://www.americasmusiccharts.com is not listed at WP:CHARTS and so this song also doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 18 October 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) 00:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable here, most sources don't meet WP:RS standards. Even the article on the band itself is questionable.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Clynes

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

Sources merely state subject exists. Per WP:NMODEL he has not been the face of any particular campaign that made him famous and he has not had a major starring role in any television or theater performance. —Ryulong (琉竜) 19:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has had roles in a number of productions, notably in the role of Greg in a National Tour reproduction of Chorus Line appearing also on Broadway stage. The article has references from BroadwayWorld and others... Also see: [28] . I didn't use this post though within text as it was from a blog. He has also appeared on a number of television series. werldwayd (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are major roles so he still doesn't qualify under WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTOR/WP:ENT (it's all the same section).—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Broadway acting is limited to minimal roles, some of the claims in renowned Tv shows looks fabricated or very much "uncredited".--Stemoc (talk) 03:09, 20 October 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) 00:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than what's in the article, there's some local news coverage of his role in A Chorus Line ([29]), another piece about Barbara Bush's 'treat' ([30]) and that seems to be about it. It doesn't add up to encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - In a way, the article looks more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article. As an actor, he hasn't had much (minor TV work) and seems to be best known for A Chorus Line. A Google News search for "Justin Clynes Photography" provided some links but it doesn't seem his photography company is notable yet. A search for "Justin Clynes model" provided some of the same links and some different ones but nothing substantial. Additional searches for the Cosmopolitan appearance provided blogs, nothing substantial. No prejudice towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 3 November 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. Michig (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOOCs Framework

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

Content fork from Massive open online course it may be appropriate to move some content to that article, although see discussions there/on that talk page regarding the history of moocs. This article has no references and may fail WP:NOR. The notability of some sources may be problematic, although again others might usefully be incorporated into the mooc article, ideally with content and inline citation rather than as further reading. Moot (but possibly useful) aside but for future reference the page name should also be 'Massive open online course framework' Sjgknight (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the prose of the article, as it seems a copyvio; see the discussion on the talk page. If the prose is in fact under a compatible license (I could not find one), please revert and apologies for the mistaken deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:17, 19 October 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) 00:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete the article has been sitting almost empty for a week now, I thought it met the criteria for speedy deletion before but that tag was reverted by the article creator who has made no further edits or comments on this discussion. There may be productive ways to incorporate the content into the main MOOC page but this should bear in mind the tags above, and the discussion on the MOOC page around problems with that article. Sjgknight (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the copyvio content removed, there is only an external links section left. No prejudice to recreation if a motivated author can find multiple reliable sources and can write proper summaries. But right now, an empty article suggests blowing it up per WP:TNT and starting over. --Mark viking (talk) 13:34, 26 October 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. WJBscribe (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DimML

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

Does not seem to pass WP:NSOFTWARE or general notability guideline. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 20:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:13, 19 October 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) 00:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any evidence of notability. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found that would indicate encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuilo Janković

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

Notability is not properly established. First line in biography appears to be an absorption of this text, with the name Hutton replaced with Jankovic. It's unclear exactly what Jankovic did, and vague statements such as "Janković stayed away from Germanisms and Slavonisisms" and "space-gobbling" don't help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source[31] seems to assert notability ("pioneering work in drama, science and publishing") and is excellent GNG material. The "absorbed text" may be an old plagiarism you have discovered - who plagiarized who remains unknown - the problem is we don't know where the original source Wikipedia text originated but clearly it's a 19th century text. There's also considerable number of sources in Serbian (?) using a generic Google search but have not tried to decipher. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I felt fairly confident that the subject was notable, only that I couldn't make head or tail of the article based on what was there. I've opened an invitation to WikiProject Serbia to solicit help from that community. I'm sure this'll all get worked out fairly quickly, and I'd be happy to vote keep once a few of the glaring bumps are smoothed out. Based on the edit history, it looks as though the English translation (and thus the plagiarism) came from this problematic, blocked IP address: User talk:24.57.110.189. Regards! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources on this person. Quick Google Books search resulted with 66 hits for "Емануило Јанковић" and 43 for "Емануил Јанковић".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:01, 20 October 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) 00:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability checked.--Zoupan 01:48, 26 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misery Loves My Company

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep The song just reached number one on Billboard's Mainstream and Active Rock charts and its chart feat was mentioned in a blurb on the Billboard website (I added the source to the article). Deserves to be expanded, but still nothing more than a stub that could be very well merged into the album article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:35, 25 October 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) 00:05, 26 October 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) 00:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transit of Venus (album). Aside from any considerations of encyclopedic significance, there simply isn't enough content for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep via --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me}. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 17:27, 6 November 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. After two weeks of discussion there certainly isn't any consensus to delete. There are several ideas here for improvement, which will hopefully now happen. Michig (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-biased diagnosing

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

This article is not encyclopedic, relates to a neologism that is not commonly-accepted terminology or notable, and is primarily OR. LT910001 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- I feel deletion is a bit harsh for this topic. I cannot access the pdf sources as an off campus login pops up and one of the text books. The other text book does talk about gender bias in the diagnosis of personality disorders. I believe there are sources which relate to this topic, even if they do not use this exact phrase. This is a list of PubMed results with "gender bias diagnosis" in the title, and many appear to be related to this topic: [32] I therefore feel it is worthwhile to preserve this and hopefully in time interested parties will improve it and add WP:MEDRS sources. Lesion (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be an idea to rename the article "Gender bias in diagnosis" or even merge it to a subsection of Medical diagnosis. Lesion (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, I would support a merge or rename as you propose. LT910001 (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of copyediting needed but has good source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 00:54, 21 October 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) 00:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an insufficiently distinguished sub-field of gender studies or Merge with Mental disorders and gender and Sex differences in medicine which address the same topics in more typical wiki-fashion, describing research at the intersection of two subjects rather than proposing an umbrella term for the practices implicated in both. Perhaps if there's enough to support it an additional Gender differences in medical diagnoses could be forked. --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, through I wonder if rename to Gender-bias in diagnosing wouldn't be better. I am not convinced there is a valid merge target; the subject appears somewhat notable and well defined (through the article is not written clearly enough to make even its very topic easy to understand for most casual readers). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Gender bias in diagnosis" would be more correct? And question need for a hyphen between gender and bias... Lesion (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but fix This article could be done better, yes it references sources and links to pages in a relevant manner but the wall of text needs to be more concise and easier to read. ~Frosty (Talk page) 05:44, 31 October 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. --BDD (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Langham

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

Notability; not notable LT910001 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- fails WP:ACADEMIC. Lesion (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? GScholar seems to indicate an h-index of over 40, with well-cited papers spread over nearly half a century. PWilkinson (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, currently we have only one source which is one of the author's papers ... if we keep this bio we definitely need more than one source, ideally with some being from independent sources. Lesion (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, but WP:Notability notes that just publishing doesn't make you notable, you need an independent claim to notability. LT910001 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- The problem with the article is that it is a stub, passing over 50 years of his life in silence. As indicated there are a lot of G-scholar hits, the top one cited 158 times, and several well over 60 times. This suggests that he was an important academic. I found an obituary, which added little. My guess is that he was born about 1925, and was active as an academic and ophthalmologist from about 1947 to 1995. The book, published four years ago is thus the culmination of a life's work. Publishing such a book in his mid-80s is again unusual. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:30, 22 October 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) 00:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that he published numerous articles does not make him notable ... notability not met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I really wanted to keep this article - he was head of research for the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins for three decades. And his article citations are pretty decent. But here's what convinced me that he was NOT a notable academic: normally the passing of an important academic would get at least a little notice, by newspapers or professional journals or at least his academic home, but Dr. Langham's passing attracted no notice. The obit found by Peterkingiron is a paid obituary listing; apparently not even his hometown paper chose to write an obit about him. Even more striking, the Wilmer Institute itself did not issue any in-memoriam or press release about his death.[33] Furthermore, almost none of the information in the article is verified; all we have is a short, paid (so not independent) funeral announcement. Basically everything in the article is OR. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 6 November 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.

[1] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=Andres+de+abreu&oq=Andres+de+abreu&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=Andres+de+abreu+soccer

[2] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=Andres+de+abreu&oq=Andres+de+abreu&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

[1]

[2]