Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
Purge

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Purge server cache

Contents

Windows 9[edit]

Windows 9 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Windows 9" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This appears to be an essay, and contains much unsourced speculation and personal opinion. Electric Wombat (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Canadian current events[edit]

Canadian current events (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Canadian current events" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Time sensitive page that links to 2010. Even if it did link to 2014, the year is a poor proxy for current events as there are things like the Charbonneau Commission that has been going on since 2011. - Sweet Nightmares 15:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Donald Hardie[edit]

Donald Hardie (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Donald Hardie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Contested prod, not sufficiently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that neither of the posts this person held are inherently notable. Lord Lieutenant is an honorary post with little real power. We may need to discuss what level of officer is inherently notable, but I suggest that it should not be as low as Brigadier. This person does not appear to have any significant claim to notability on top of holding these two posts. PatGallacher (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Per WP:SOLDIER we keep articles on all general officers or equivalent (which includes brigadiers). Although it is not an official guideline, it is accepted by most editors who regularly work on military articles. The Lord-Lieutenant is the representative of the Queen in the county. That is also generally considered to be a notable post and has its own article. I should point out in addition that Hardie has an entry in Who's Who and, although the article did not mention it when nominated for deletion, is a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, a level of honour which has generally been held to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev (journalist)[edit]

Nikita Khrushchev (journalist) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nikita Khrushchev (journalist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Delete, as person fails the general notability guidelines. Most of the article is about his father and grandfather. Notability is not inherited. Unfortunately, the one citation and all of the external links were raw urls and are now dead links. Nonetheless, coverage seems to be lacking. The Russian Wikipedia article is a bit longer, but it has only a single citation to a short biography at RIA Novosti. He was not a columnist, he worked in the newspaper's morgue (archive and background information division) and was in charge of the "Calendar" column that listed upcoming events. A non-notable man in a non-notable position at a notable newspaper, the Moscow News, with a well-known relative. Note, when searching for him, that there are a lot of false drops even when using "journalist" as a filter, hits such as "Interview with Nikita Khrushchev's journalist son-in-law" (his uncle). --Bejnar (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete This is much more about his relatives than about him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sherie Merlis[edit]

Sherie Merlis (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sherie Merlis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The whole article is written in some foreign language. References given at end are wrong Sulaimandaud (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment page has been deleted previously as a test page. Some parts like filmography, seem to be copied from Angelina Jolie.220 of Borg 15:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as an unreferenced BLP. I had BLP Prod tagged this because I didn't see an AFD template, but you seem to have reverted your addition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Elwood (Finnish musician)[edit]

Elwood (Finnish musician) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Elwood (Finnish musician)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No indication of notability in the article as it stands, nor one independent reference. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Joanna Lindén[edit]

Joanna Lindén (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Joanna Lindén" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Not notable person, obvious autobiography, who has been spamming several 'notable person' pages with link to her own page Jdtclean (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Oskoui[edit]

Stephen Oskoui (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Stephen Oskoui" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:GNG. While a successful small businessman, Smiley Media is one of thousands such companies. Raising $3mm for a SuperPAC is no big deal in this era of billion dollar election cycles. – S. Rich (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comic Book Cast[edit]

Comic Book Cast (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Comic Book Cast" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

A nomination for an award is not notability DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

COD - Crews On Destiny[edit]

COD - Crews On Destiny (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "COD - Crews On Destiny" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Articles is overly promotional. It promotes the band without citing sources. For example, the article claims that the bent "were an inspiration to the young generation", that they "had set a benchmark in Nepali music industry", and that their songs "were some of the biggest hits in Nepalese music", without citing any sources to prove this. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey Harmon[edit]

Jeffrey Harmon (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jeffrey Harmon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:GNG. His boss (Robert Wagstaff) has no article, nor does Orabrush. He was one of the people who helped to start Endorse Liberty (and that link redirects to Ron Paul), but so what? Lots of people were involved. – S. Rich (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Bell Integrator[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Bell Integrator (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bell Integrator" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Completely unremarkable/un-notable organisation. Doesn't even make any claim to notability. Has been speedied a number of times but people keep recreating it. Recent speedy undone on request. Bringing it here now. AlanS (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete : Promotional, most of the results seems to have been listed by the employees of this organization. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
That's one of the reasons I've nominated it for speedy in the past and it's gotten speedied for that reason. That and being completely unremarkable. Keeps on coming back though. AlanS (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not cite any source apart from the company's own website; in my view, this alone is enough for deletion under WP:GNG. I do note that an earlier version of the article had a number of citations, but most of those were to the company website or to press releases, and the rest were to other company's websites that merely identified Bell Integrator as a "partner" (i.e., supplier) to the other company, without any other information about the business. None of these provide the kind of "significant coverage" required by the guideline. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, open to salting: no evidence of notability. Cannot find support in English language RS and the Russian Google hits look like press releases (but I don't know that because I don't know Russian). BethNaught (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article reads like a press release, has been deleted before, and is not substantiated by reliable sources. Andrew327 15:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete & Salt as no evidence of any notability, Plus it's been recreated 3 times [1] - Enough is enough. –Davey2010(talk) 15:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Europe, Middle East, Africa and Latin America[edit]

Europe, Middle East, Africa and Latin America (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Europe, Middle East, Africa and Latin America" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Unreferenced since 2008 - sounds like an opinion piece rather than a term that is actually widely used. An orphan, nothing links here Gbawden (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Even if the expression was in common use the article would still be a dictionary definition only.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Estonia at the IAAF World Championships[edit]

Estonia at the IAAF World Championships (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Estonia at the IAAF World Championships" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Someone started this article but didn't finish. Tagged as an orphan since 2009 - I don't see the point of having this article if there isn't anything in it Gbawden (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Exam Invigilator[edit]

Exam Invigilator (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Exam Invigilator" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Not convinced of notability. Most sources are job descriptions or how-to's. The Banner talk 12:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What should I do to improve this article? I am new to Wikipedia and is still not clear about placing references or in - text citations. Could anyone help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephine Roy (talkcontribs) 13:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Lists of Emmy winners[edit]

Lists of Emmy winners (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lists of Emmy winners" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I propose deletion of this list, rather than redirecting. Each Emmy list already points to the other 2 lists - I can't see a reason to have a separate list like this, which in any case is an orphan so no one is accessing this page Gbawden (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Elvis' Grave[edit]

Elvis' Grave (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Elvis' Grave" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Orphaned article, not sure it meets WP:MOVIE IMO Gbawden (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ani Yorentz[edit]

Ani Yorentz (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ani Yorentz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

not yet notable; only 1 role in non-student company. Prodwas declined. DGG ( talk ) 11:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Fannaa[edit]

Fannaa (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Fannaa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

It is bit hard to understand what the article is about. It seams to be about a TV series, but it is hard to find reliable sources as there is also movie titled "Fanaa (film)". Vanjagenije (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not really even an article—just an incomplete infobox. --Jprg1966 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Amateur snooker longest frame[edit]

Amateur snooker longest frame (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Amateur snooker longest frame" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This looks like a case of original research. there are no sources to prove that this frame was indeed the longest. There are also no sources to prove that this concept is notable enough. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Toh Guan[edit]

Toh Guan (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Toh Guan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Unremarkable geography location. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 08:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars Theme/Cantina Band[edit]

Star Wars Theme/Cantina Band (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Star Wars Theme/Cantina Band" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No way does this deserve a standalone article. Biggest-selling instrumental single in the history of recorded music or not, this is an unnecessary fork as far as I'm concerned. Launchballer 10:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. The song was a number-one single on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. It therefore meets the first factor in WP:NSONG.--Bensin (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I don't fully understand the nominators argument ... it's common practice on wikipedia to have forks for specific singles if that is what they are referring to? Anyway, this qualifies, being No 1 on Billboard Hot 100 and it also charted at No 7 in the United Kingdom. JTdale Talk 13:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: I've blocked the above three as obvious sockpuppets. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 14:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Delete a #1 Billboard single? Don't be silly. That's as notable as a pop song can possibly get aside from arguably winning a Grammy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Santosh upadhyay[edit]

Santosh upadhyay (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Santosh upadhyay" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No sources to verify claims implying notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comalcool[edit]

Comalcool (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Comalcool" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This article was speedied as G:11 (spam), but was re-created in the same form by the original author. I'm outting it to discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Mobogenie[edit]

Mobogenie (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mobogenie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Article was recreated with similar content to what was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobogenie. Ollieinc (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Fetion[edit]

Fetion (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Fetion" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "飞信" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This software seems to be non-notable. Links in the article are nowhere close to establishing notability, and all that I could find on the web is some news wire with trivial coverage – mostly announcements of plans by China Mobile with no in-depth discussion of the software itself. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
KeepReply Some in-depth coverage of its market share:[2][3][4]--180.155.72.174 (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Coverage of its market share belongs to China Mobile article – this one is about piece of software, and unless some in-depth coverage of software (as opposed to market wire) is present. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Reply I'm confused with your words. The decline of Fetion's market share is closely related to the poor performance of the software, as discussed in these sources. For exapmle:"凭借其PC与手机互通,短信与消息的无缝互转功能,并依托中移动庞大的网内基数,飞信发展迅速,至2011年中期飞信活跃用户数接近8270万。在国内IM软件市场,飞信曾跻身前三名。""而在增强用户粘性、引异网手机用户的竞争中,飞信作为中移动的战略产品也发挥了重要作用,但拥有了庞大的用户群,却没拥有良好的口碑,这为日后飞信的衰败埋下了伏笔。""即便在飞信发展迅速时,在很多业内专家看来,飞信作为一款互联网产品并不成功,移动互联网专家王煜全曾表示,飞信就是一个免费发短信的工具,除此之外,还有什么作用。""飞信的衰败与产品本身的问题有关,快速成长之后,飞信又瞄准QQ,希望能在商业收入方面开疆扩土,于是纷繁芜杂的功能被加入,越来越多按钮仅为收费而存在。""飞信基础功能则停滞不前甚至后退,PC端越来越臃肿,手机端飞信的不稳定和消息的延迟有目共睹。"(taken from the first source) I wonder whether you've read the provided sources in detail, or maybe I have to know what's the expected "discussion of the software itself".--180.155.72.174 (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Market share does not speak of particular features, user interface, development history of this software, or at least anything that would allow to distinguish it from other instant messengers. See this for example of coverage that would count for WP:GNG purposes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@Czarkoff:If all that required is "particular features, user interface, development history of this software", I can provide more sources.[5][6][7] In my point of view, the reception of the software, which is usually shown by its market analyse, is more important than its function, just as a book review weighs much more than a plot summary.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, these seem to be OK. Still, I am not sure whether the topic may be considered notable if it was not found worth mention in any English sources at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English per GNG.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
GNG is ambiguous on this topic, actually: non-English sources can contribute to establishing notability, but it does not state that non-English sources alone can be sufficient. At the same time, coverage limited to particular language indicates lack of notability outside the country where this language is used. I don't think that "notable in country XYZ", even if XYZ is large and important country as China, is equal to "notable". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Attention by serveral national sources is enough. See WP:AUD--180.155.72.174 (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:AUD deals all different organizations and products. If we were discussing China Mobile, I would happily accept this argument, because Chinese telecom company is naturaly limited to the country and national sources are OK. Instant messaging applications are international by their nature, so national sources are not enough for this kind of topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 06:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes notability threshold with significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. There is no requirement that references are in English, and the argument that because it is only of national interest is fallacious. There are many Western topics that have no coverage in Chinese sources but that does not make them non-notable.  Philg88 talk 07:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @Philg88: You've missed the point: unlike most products communication software is inherently international. Notable Chinese brick and mortar business will definitely be worth mention if several Chinese only nation-wide sources will cover it, but the lack of coverage of instant messaging software that is by its nature supposed to be used worldwide means that this software in not notable outside the area of coverage. At least to date this worked as a rule worked for Russian IM software: mail.ru Agent was deleted for the very same reason and Yandex.Messenger was never created. I don't really get why any bias towards China must be in place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry Dmitrij, but I don't think I have. There are multiple national sources with in-depth coverage of the topic. As far as the Chinese IM landscape is concerned, the idea of a global messaging service is anathema to the powers that be. Since China Mobile is owned by the government, it is in their interest to restrict the service to China so you won't see any outside coverage due to non-availability. See WeChat for an example of Chinese censorship of IM products.  Philg88 talk 11:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • @Philg88: To my understanding, this makes Chinese government-controlled IM products inherently non-notable, though it is worth explanation in instant messaging. FWIW these days nearly every ISP, phone manufecturer or internet giant has his own set of web services (mail, IM, storage/backup, news reader, etc), and I don't see how Wikipedia benehits from having numerous articles on nearly identical entities with no chance of more or less comprehensive individual coverage even in abstract distinct future. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Nearly every ISP, phone manufecturer or internet giant has his own set of web services but few of them gain in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. The history and feature of these services differ from each other, thus they can be described in different ways.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Communication software is not inherently international, since they can be limited by ISP or the government, just as other products can be limited by the company which manufacture them. Take fetion as a example: It can work only through China Mobile's network. If government-controlled IM products is inherently non-notable, can we regard all the companies or products in North Korea as inherently non-notable? Indeed WP:AUD deals all different organizations and products in the same way. IM product is not something special. WP:AUD says "at least one regional source is necessary. If a product has received sufficient coverage in multiple national sources, it's clearly notable. It's the sufficient (non-trival) coverage that makes one topic distinguishes from another. --180.155.72.174 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Well, later today I will expand the article with the sources you've provided. I would kindly ask you to provide more reliable sources to make sure I could describe it as thoroughly as possible. And then we'll se whether this description would allow to distinguish it from off-the-mill instant messanger. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
                • With all due respect, I see no indication that you understand Chinese, so I'm not quite sure how you intend to address the referencing. The sources don't need to be cited in the article, they just need to exist. And they do.  Philg88 talk 13:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • I have automatic translation that gives a grasp on content. Sources somewhere out there don't really improve articles' quality, and this particular article contains absolutely no encyclopedic content for all 6 (six!!!) years of its existance. Now that the service itself is on steady decline even after second attempt at its revival, these sources in the wild don't promise better coverage at some later date any more, so either someone has to fill this article with actual content or it will remain useless clutter forever. And it is obvious from this discussion that I am the only person here who is concerned about its content – despite your !votes to keep it, neither You nor IP did even try actually getting the article to the state when there is at least something worth keeping at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 14:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
                    • This is afd, a place to decide whether an article should be removed from wikipedia instead of how an article can be improved. As an active user on zhwiki, I don't have enough time to expand the article at present. Maybe I will improve the corresponding article on zhwiki later.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
                      • @Dmitrij There is no deadline by when a Wikipedia article must be complete (or be "filled with content" to use your expression). Notability is not transient, once it has been established it remains pretty much immutable. If I get some time tomorrow I will do some work with the Chinese sources and add appropriate references. In the meantime, I'd really rather you didn't try anything with machine translation. In my experience, it just causes more problems, which then require fixing. Cheers,  Philg88 talk 14:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Expanded with three references from reliable sources. @180.155.72.174: 请检查变化,谢谢.  Philg88 talk 07:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but this is basically business wire, information that does not consititute the coverage of the software itself. If these sources basically boil down to information like this, they don't contribute to notability of this product at all. That is: as of now this articles clearly fails WP:PRODUCT and is to be merged with China Mobile. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It's an IM platform just like WeChat or Tencent QQ and there is coverage of the product in multiple sources sufficient to establish notability according to Wikipedia requirements. The sources cited are not "business wires" - China doesn't have such things. A Google search in Chinese for the exact product name returns over 31 million hits.  Philg88 talk 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:GOOGLEHITS? Really, the sources about "China Mobile" efforts around its products and services are sources about company, not services. If there are independent reliable sources discussing this software in depth, please, demonstrate them. I am entitled to ask for demonstration by including material in the article, because Chinese-only sources are unaccessible for most Wikipedia editors and can't be verified otherwise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll have to accept the Chinese sources in good faith as they are perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. As for the Google hits, they give an indication that this is a widely covered topic – the product's Chinese name is very specific and doesn't refer to anything else. Coverage of the IM offering from the world's largest mobile operator, even though it is a "foreign" topic is also important from a CSB perspective.  Philg88 talk 08:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I could accept Chinese-only sources as this subject seems to be naturally limited to China. But I can't accept foreign language sources with no indication of demonstrating notability of subject, particularily after several such sources, which were used for supporting keep !votes, turned out not supporting notability of the subject. Please, provide independent secondary reliable sources that would discuss the subject of the article – software – in depth, preferably by demonstrating their coverage via inclusion of the sourced material in the article. Right now, following your edits to the article, I have to assume that you are mistaken (in good faith) about availability of sources supporting subject's notability, and the amount of discussion without any good sources provided makes the good faith assumption vaporize rather quickly. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Philg88 talk 08:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Commment Are these any help? 1, 2, 3, 4. JTdale Talk 13:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Note If your looking for some form of notability because of the software being original or doing someone other software does not, then you should probably delete most software articles on Wikipedia. The notability of this is from massive numbers of users, not features. Also, I notice Google Hangouts has an article. How exactly is that different to this having an article? Both are nothing more than one of the many many proprietary messengers half of the Internets major companies have, since that seems to the argument against this having an article. JTdale Talk 13:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

T2 (novel series)[edit]

T2 (novel series) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "T2 (novel series)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable novels. No significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, failing WP:N and WP:GNG. References recently added show a few user reviews from goodreads.com as well as the number of libraries that hold the books, not nearly enough coverage to merit a Wikipedia page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010(talk) 07:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Mike Wiand[edit]

Mike Wiand (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mike Wiand" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This person seems to be of local interest only. I see no coverage of this person outside of Leeds. I also don't see any evidence that his work as a spy was notable or unusual in any way. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing notable here, low level spy and business man.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010(talk) 07:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Spider-Men[edit]

The Spider-Men (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Spider-Men" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

It seams to me that this article is redundant to List of Spider-Man supporting characters. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete - No references, in universe, and non notable. Any info can either be incorporated into the article on the show or a list of alternate spider-men. Killer Moff (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010(talk) 07:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Visual Dictionary of Star Wars, Episode I[edit]

The Visual Dictionary of Star Wars, Episode I (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Visual Dictionary of Star Wars, Episode I" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable book; fails WP:NBOOK Mikeblas (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is a non-notable book. Mention of the book should be in the Episode I article though.Frmorrison (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010(talk) 07:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as a non-notable book. Wefihe (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nigel Hart[edit]

Nigel Hart (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nigel Hart" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Hedge fund manager. Although there are refs his fund, ReachCapital Management, does not appear particularly noteworthy. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010(talk) 07:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Vacancy led recruitment[edit]

Vacancy led recruitment (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vacancy led recruitment" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Advertsing. Expert 2 Care promoting Expert 2 Care. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidate led recruitment of the same company The Banner talk 21:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, a not-very-clever effort to disguise spam as content. bd2412 T 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010(talk) 07:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks likes spammy "content marketing" from Expert2Care. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Kublai Khan (band)[edit]

Kublai Khan (band) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kublai Khan (band)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Completely unsourced article about a band with no substantive claim of notability that passes WP:NMUSIC. Note that "defunct band which had a member who went on to attain notability with a different band later on" is not one of the NMUSIC criteria — and even if it were, it still wouldn't entitle a band to keep an unsourced article, as it's not the assertion of passing NMUSIC that gets a band past NMUSIC, but the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to verify the assertion. As well, it warrants mention that the article was recently hijacked to write about a different band, which also didn't make any substantive claim of passing NMUSIC as written. Neither band is entitled to keep an unsourced article on Wikipedia, so this needs to be deleted if the sourcing can't be beefed up. Redirection to Greg Handevidt might also be acceptable, but his article is poorly sourced enough — answers.com is most certainly not a reliable source — to be dancing on the edge of deletability too. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Except I'm not sure Greg Handevidt is himself notable, except possibly by playing in 2 notable bands, which he didn't if Kublai Khan isn't notable. And he was only in Megadeth briefly and isn't described in detail in that article so merging there may be disproportionate. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010(talk) 07:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sachi Matsumoto[edit]

Sachi Matsumoto (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sachi Matsumoto" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "松本さち" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Recreated after being deleted in 2012 and not being restored after a deletion review, this article still lacks two sources, nor was I able to find two sources, which would evidence notability under WP:GNG. Additional sources welcome. j⚛e deckertalk 03:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a case where the person fails per WP:ENTERTAINER as there is no major roles done, also per WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 just fine. Was one of the main cast members in Penguin no Mondai[8] which has over 250 episodes made. They are listed as being in all the television shows. [9] shows all major roles in bold, so they've done others as well. Dream Focus 11:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    Dream those are both from the encyclopedia portion of ANN with has proved to be user edited and unreliable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no doubting this person was in a notable show that had over 250 episodes, they a main cast member in it. He was also a main character in Hikarian, which had over two hundred episodes. Sounds like some major roles to me. Dream Focus 03:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
While ANN's encyclopedia is not a reliable source, it can be used to verify (though not source) if a voice actor has had several major roles. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm very much aware that I originally !voted delete in the original AfD, but since then I learned that she voiced Link in a few games. Yes, Link is well-known for not exactly being talkative, but still, a major character such as Link, isn't that enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Well no, voicing a character that historically rarely, if ever speaks doesn't seem like a very good justification for making a special case of ignoring the root of the GNG. Sources are still paramount, and none of the roles listed seem like candidates for a strong likelihood of reliable sources and wide coverage. The article, after two AFD's still only has two sources and one of them can't be used to ascertain notability.SephyTheThird (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Notability of voice actors is not determined by how many series they have been in, how big those series are or how famous those series are. It's determined by the same thing as every other article - wide coverage in third party reliable sources, none of which are demonstrated by this article to a reasonable degree. The Entertainer sub section is being used as an catch all excuse for articles that don't demonstrate notability without dealing with these core issues and it needs to stop. It's irrelevant how many episodes a show is if the voice provider only has a few lines here and there. If the provision of voices for individual roles is significant than it will be covered in sources suitable. Clearly, in this case it isn't and it should be subject to the same rules as any other page. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the absence of any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how the basic notability criteria have been satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakrtalk / 02:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Into the Woods (Warriors)[edit]

Into the Woods (Warriors) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Into the Woods (Warriors)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Children's fantasy fiction manga; no viable references given. Even if the single reference were viable (and I've tried finding a substitute), the articles need multiple such references to establish notability. Fails other criteria of WP:NBOOK. Nominating other books in the series (Escape from the Forest (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) and Return to the Clans (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)) for the same reasons. Mikeblas (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Escape from the Forest (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
Return to the Clans (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
split to new line --slakrtalk / 01:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What has this AfD to do with The United States of America? User:Gene93k, can you please explain? -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The publisher, Tokyopop, is American. I sorted under country of origin. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakrtalk / 01:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Shafi (actor)[edit]

Shafi (actor) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Shafi (actor)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No sourcing; no notability established. Article appears to have been created by the subject themselves in violation of WP:COI. McDoobAU93 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete AUTOBIO and therefore COI. Non-notable. Created for self promotion. A side note, the article creator's userpage,User:Actorshafi, seems to also redirect to this article. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The article seems to give assertions to the subject passing WP:ENT #1 and there seem to be sources available.[10] [11] [12]. Short COI articles can be cleaned up. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakrtalk / 01:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Christmas (Hillsong album)[edit]

Christmas (Hillsong album) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Christmas (Hillsong album)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Track listing only at AllMusic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, or else Move to Merge with It's Christmas (Hillsong album) or Celebrating Christmas. Cross Rhythms reviewed the original album back in 2001, but a fairly quick g-hits search could not bring anything else up on that album alone. However, this album was apparently re-released along with Celebrating Christmas as a dual-album combo entitled It's Christmas, as discussed by BREATHEcast. The BREATHEcast article does contain a substantial review of Christmas, though, so that and the Cross Rhythms review should be enough for the album to have it's own standalone article. So, it can stay, or get merged into a yet-to-be created It's Christmas article.--¿3family6 contribs 16:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep two or more reviews, enough for a stand-alone article. Thanks to 3family6 for research.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment I see Cross Rhythms. AllMusic is a track listing and BREATHEcast isn't a substantial review. Where do you see two or more reviews? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment I count BREATHEcast, the same as 3family6 above who says it "does contain a substantial review of Christmas, though". I agree.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Except he changed his opinion based on the lack of sources and your misunderstanding continues to determine that every Hillsong album should be kept regardless of the number of or quality of sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Walter, I did not change my Keep vote, or my Merge vote. I deleted my "Move" vote as an alternative to merging (I'm not sure what I meant by "move"), as well as eliminating Celebrating Christmas as a possible target. I think at this juncture a merger into It's Christmas, which I hope to create tomorrow, is the best option.--¿3family6 contribs 02:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable album with no evidence of notability .–Davey2010(talk) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakrtalk / 01:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Crazy Noise (Hillsong album)[edit]

Crazy Noise (Hillsong album) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Crazy Noise (Hillsong album)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Other than the AllMusic reference nothing supports the notability of the album. See WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of independent significant coverage. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Keep Sufficient notability to be reviewed by reliable sources. Thanks to 3family6 for additional refs.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Can't people do a g-hits search? I brought up two different reviews for this: Christian Post and AllMusic. I agree with Shaidar cuebiyar that many (not all) of these PRODs were premature.--¿3family6 contribs 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

    • Many of the articles have already been deleted. The de-proding was premature on at least half of them. I agree that some were too early though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakrtalk / 01:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Jump to the Jam[edit]

Jump to the Jam (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jump to the Jam" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of independent significant coverage. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I was able to find a review of the album, there might be more out there.--¿3family6 contribs 19:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Keep should only happen with three or more (multiple) sources. This presently only has one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Multiple I'd say is more than one. Agreed that it needs more than one significant mention. Hence my hesitancy to give it a full "keep" vote. But I'm not convinced that there is nothing else written about this album. I haven't done a site search of all the sources on WP:CCM/S, and there could be offline references.--¿3family6 contribs 00:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Traditionally "multiple" means three or more in AfDs I've been a part of. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, I don't always go by tradition, on or off-Wiki.--¿3family6 contribs 16:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Weak delete I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.--¿3family6 contribs 16:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Good luck finding an online source for a review or any mention of notoriety for an album released 20 years ago during the infancy of the Internet (particularly for an Australian Christian release). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.55.67 (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC) 58.6.55.67 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • They are correct though. There won't be much online about this album, while there might be much more in print. But in that case, someone with access to print mentions can recreate the article.--¿3family6 contribs 15:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakrtalk / 01:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Overwhelmed[edit]

Overwhelmed (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Overwhelmed" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. AllMusic is just a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The article cites a review by Cross Rhythms, and so certainly should not have been PRODed. I can't find anything on a g-hits search, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything else out there.--¿3family6 contribs 15:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.--¿3family6 contribs 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: How are the two added reviews actual reviews and not just advertising from the vendor?--¿3family6 contribs 02:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree. They're not RSes and they're not professional reviews. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I accede to 3family6's greater familiarity with CCM sources. I didn't see too many Australian sources at wp:ccm/s and so I searched for .au sites only. I thought that since Cross Rhythms was selling the same product, such reviews were acceptable here. I will continue to look for other sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
You should recommend some Australian sources at the CCM/S talk page. The difference between the Cross Rhythms review and the two others you posted is that Cross Rhythms reviews albums independent of the store. CBN.com does the same thing, and so do other publishers too. If you could demonstrate that the two sources you added did not originate as advertising and are instead quotes of a professional review, then they can qualify as reliable sources.--¿3family6 contribs 13:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I'm voting weak keep and not full keep as it seems this album had some pretty good coverage. Although some of the sources might be more on the advertising side of things, the album has a solid review from Cross Rhythms as well as an AllMusic mention. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • You are single-handedly changing the definition of words. We have three track listing "references" and a short review. How is that "pretty good coverage"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
      • That's why I'm voting for a Weak Keep and not a full Keep. I'm trying to be as lenient as I can when it comes to coverage. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakrtalk / 00:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Maharana Pratap Engineering College[edit]

Maharana Pratap Engineering College (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Maharana Pratap Engineering College" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

naveenpf (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Lauren Canario[edit]

Lauren Canario (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lauren Canario" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Unsupported by references (tagged as dead links for 18 months), single event of news (arrested for civil disobedience), most of article is about other topics, fails WP:GNG for a biography. – S. Rich (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010(talk) 12:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete A low level activist who gets at best passing mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Aurora Perrineau[edit]

Aurora Perrineau (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Aurora Perrineau" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. She has only one notable film role, which is currently shooting and in other film she has just been added to the cast. Which does not make her notable. Captain Assassin! «TCG» 03:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete This is clearly an example of someone who is not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Navid Sabouri[edit]

Navid Sabouri (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Navid Sabouri" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: WP:NFOOTY demands that he have played in a match in a fully professional league. Although he has not yet done so, having recently signed to a top flight Iranian professional league suggests he will do so in the near future. There is no point deleting this article as it will be eligible for recreation in the near future. BethNaught (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 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 achievements to satisfy GNG. BethNaught's rationale is not acceptable. It is pure WP:CRYSTAL, there is no evidence that this player will play any time soon from any reliable source, plenty of prospects are signed by top clubs only to never play. It is a fundamental tenet of WP that we only create articles when players are notable, not in anticipation of notability. So far this individual has not played a single second of first-team football at any level, let alone fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
That's why I said weak keep. If it were me I would decline to press the delete button, but leave it to someone else. Also, forgive me for not knowing the ins and outs of a sport in which I have only superficial interest. BethNaught (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Jesterlads[edit]

Jesterlads (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jesterlads" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Although their videos have gained viral fame, there's nothing notable about JesterLads per se. I can't find significant coverage of the channel itself, only trivial mentions of their videos. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Energy Autonomy: The Economic, Social & Technological Case for Renewable Energy[edit]

Energy Autonomy: The Economic, Social & Technological Case for Renewable Energy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Energy Autonomy: The Economic, Social & Technological Case for Renewable Energy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Can't find any references that make me figure this is a book that meets WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - not a notable book. I assume that is the nom's reason. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Delete. Indeed, I'm having a hard time finding references to make it meet notability. (Sorry; every once in a while, I somehow miss entering the reasoning in afd2.)) -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found three reviews from peer-reviewed journals and a mention in an issue of The Ecologist, which looks to be a book review as well. I'm also finding where this book is used as a source in various different texts and papers. ([13], [14], [15]) The original article was fairly rough, but there's enough on there now to asset enough notability for a keep. It needs more TLC, preferably from someone more aware of the topic material than I am, but I've done enough to clear up the most pressing issues. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian Black[edit]

Brian Black (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brian Black" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable college professor. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:PROF GrapedApe (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't find cites on GS. Maybe somebody else can. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. Also, a BLP with no references, reads very promotional. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. His book Petrolia has 51 Google scholar citations (the rest are in single digits when they're found at all), not enough for a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, but it does have some four published reviews: JSTOR 3594746 JSTOR 3985468 JSTOR 25147879 doi:10.1086/533300. I think that's not unusual for an academic book of this type, but if he had two books with this level of attention I might !vote keep. As it is, I think there's a WP:BIO1E problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep -- He has a significant published output. Being published by academic publishers suggests notability; as do his editorial appointments, some of which are not posts that non-entities get. His present post seems to be rather higher than head of a university department. That post would be held by a professor (with a chair), who would certainly be notable; so, surely, the holder of a higher level post is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Napping (method of data collection)[edit]

Napping (method of data collection) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Napping (method of data collection)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This is what appears to be a research paper that is written in the first person. I'm not sure if there even is a category for deletion? Also there isn't much context. Gilded Snail (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Selleck Chemicals LLC[edit]

Selleck Chemicals LLC (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Selleck Chemicals LLC" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Unsourced article about a company. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 02:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Multiple searches (Google, Questia, Highbeam) are turning up no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per G11 and salt. This is unsourced unambiguous promotion. The page was previously deleted as such but then recreated. BethNaught (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010(talk) 12:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ark-La-Tex[edit]

Ark-La-Tex (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ark-La-Tex" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Unreferenced, Original Research, and a term that doesn't come up in google seraches. WP:NEO may apply. Prod taken down with the explanation of GHits. ...William 01:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. A nomination evidently based on a mistake of fact. I can't explain the nomination's reports of not coming up with Google hits, since clicking the "find sources" links above yields 484,000 Google hits, 1,140 current GNews hits, 13,300 GBooks hits, and 571 hits on GScholar. There's nothing NEO about this term: the Shreveport-Texarkana region has been known as the Ark-La-Tex for many decades. A cursory look at of the links shows the pervasive use of the term. I added a couple of basic references for the name to get this started. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Arxiloxos; common name for this tri-state area for sure. Nate (chatter) 02:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ark-La-Tex is and has been a very common name for this region; sources exist supporting this claim, as indicated above. Indeed, the NBC affiliate in the region, KTAL, brands itself as such, indicating it is not a neologism. --Kinu t/c 02:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as a widely used name for the region, as illustrated by Ark-La-Tex Oilfield Expo, Ark-La-Tex Wireline Services, Ark-La-Tex Shredding, Ark-La-Tex Color Lab, Ark-La-Tex Challenge, and so on. - Dravecky (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Google and Google Books both brought up many reliable sources for the article. The claim that a Google search brings up no sources is simply untrue. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Snow keep* since everyone who looks will find it. https://www.google.com/search?q=arklatex (cf. Texarkana) Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2014 (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 Workers and Punks University[edit]

The Workers and Punks University (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Workers and Punks University" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No evidence of notability. Eleassar my talk 10:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Note that the article is out of date: it is apparently no longer organised by the Peace Institute – Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies, Ljubljana, but by the Institute for Labour Studies[16]. Also, its Slovenian name is Delavsko-punkerska univerza (DPU), which is often translated as Workers' Punk University or Workers-Punks' University or anything similar. There's little WP:RS coverage in English, but I suggest that people with relevant linguistic experience are encouraged to search for appropriate sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems there are two newspaper articles having The Workers and Punks University (TWPU) as their primary topic, one published in 2011 by Delo and authored by Jela Krečič, and another one by Dnevnik in 2013. I have added them as references with this edit together with other changes. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, as per DancingPhilosopher. Beside the mentioned references, there's the Culture.si article in English. — Yerpo Eh? 05:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Both the delo.si article and the dnevnik.si article were written by lecturers of the University, therefore the articles do not qualify as an independent coverage. Also, the culture.si article does not qualify as an independent mainstream coverage in any regard, as it is a wiki open to too many potential editors and includes a number of non-notable topics. --Eleassar my talk 09:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Independency can not be interpreted as being tied to the individual journalist (and even if it could be, in case of Jela Krečič, she was invited only once in 2009, and was never an employee nor invited again by the University), because the independency is tied to the journalist's supervisor, i.e. editor, not the journalist, as it would be in case of self-publishing or blogging where there is no editorial process involved. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Scoil an Chroí Ró Naofa[edit]

Scoil an Chroí Ró Naofa (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Scoil an Chroí Ró Naofa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

NN primary boys school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge to Castletownbere or County Cork. The Sacred Heart schools are notable but this one in Cork doesn't seem to have any RS. I've expanded the article and found WP:RS. It seems notable in Cork, and it is a Sacred Heart school. But it's not notable world-wide, if that is the requirement. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • While I would not object to a redirect, a merge of wholly uncited challenged text is not appropriate. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The school has a website and that can be used per WP:use of primary sources since adding it to the List of Schools article only needs the fact that it exists. It can also be verified by the Archdiocese of Cork and Ross which has the school listed on its website. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • All good stuff for the creation of appropriate material at the target article, if it is redirected.Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix Nuclear Labs[edit]

Phoenix Nuclear Labs (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Phoenix Nuclear Labs" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Notability not demonstrated - fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree - Phenoix Nuclear Labs has been around for 9 years, it was founded by Dr. Greg Piefer, who has been a pioneer in IEC and Fusion for over 15 years. This company routinely receives press in the Wisconsin area , here are three examples:

The company has grown to 30 employees and the technology they have developed is really cutting edge stuff. Their patents discuss gas-based IEC devices. These machines do nuclear fusion reactions which produce neutrons. PNL has developed some of the worlds best commercial neutron sources - 10^14 Neutrons per second is no joke. This technology puts them in a unique position to developed radioactive isotopes. These isotopes (like MOLY-99 or Mo-99) are very rare, and very expensive. They have been made in giant machines (such as particle accelerators) in the past, PNL has scaled down the size of these machines considerably. This gives their spin-off company: SHINE technologies, a very unique and exciting position in the market place. PNL is one the best examples of commercial applications of fusor devices. WikiHelper2134 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, the company has a credible, extensive list of partners and staff: the US Army, the NNSA, TechSource and (a few years ago) Los Alamos National Labs. As a kicker, they have a NASA astronaut on their board of board of directors.WikiHelper2134 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ukexpat. No evidence of corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note, I don't know much about this company, (not affiliated in any way, etc, etc), but Phoenix Nuclear Labs (PNL) and their partner SHINE medical technologies are routinely in the news, at least in southern WI, due to the process that they developed to produce MOLY-99 or Mo-99. Apparently the company SHINE was formed by several of the people involved with PNL to actually use the process they developed. The way it is portrayed in the Wisconsin State Journal is that they will build a plant near the airport in Janesville, WI and produce Mo-99, which has a halflife suitable for shipping, to be shipped to hospitals through out US who then use it to make isotopes with short halflives that are suitable for nuclear imaging. One of the issues mentioned in the newspaper is that the main source of this Mo-99 is a Canadian reactor that uses highly enriched uranium, but the PNL process doesn't use HEU, thus reducing the risk of proliferation, etc. Additionally, the Canadian reactor is supposedly shutting down in 2016 making this process even more important, at least that's what they claim to the press anyway. It seems to me that this is something that is notable, but I don't know where that process would be best covered on wikipedia or if an article about the lab is necessary. Nuclear medicine#Source of radionuclides, with notes on a few radiopharmaceuticals seems to cover some of this ground. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The jsonline source and external links to regional newspaper constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. We don't delete an article on notable companies just because the article is poorly sourced. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Duel for Gold[edit]

Duel for Gold (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Duel for Gold" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Article has no independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMNOT. Mdtemp (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Mandarin:(Find sources: "Huo bing" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
Cantonese:(Find sources: "Fo ping" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
working title:(Find sources: "Thieves Fall Out" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "Duel for Gold (1971 film)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "火併" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "Shaw Bros, Duel for Gold" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "Chor Yuen, Duel for Gold" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "Shaw Bros, Huo bing" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "Chor Yuen, Huo bing" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "Ivy Ling Po, Duel for Gold" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "Ivy Ling Po, Huo bing" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep A big issue is that its Chinese name is 火併 (which simply translates as "fights") and this common search term/word gives multiple false positives. As director Yuen Chor is a very prolific Hong Kong notable, and as this is one of his works, I can accept that this film must certainly have had hard-copy Chinese coverage back in pre-internet 1971... coverage which was not somehow archived 20 years later when limited internet became available in Hong Kong. As article content is verifiable, I believe that under WP:NTEMP it serves Wikipedia to allow it to remain and receive the editorial attention of those editors better able than I to find find and translate sources. Being difficult to address does not equate to deletion.Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's work. Now it meets WP:NF#Other evidence of notability.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Woody Carvalho[edit]

Woody Carvalho (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Woody Carvalho" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Extremely badly written and non-encyclopedically formatted résumé-style WP:BLP of a musician who has a potentially valid claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC, but no actual reliable sources to support it — and as always, a person does not pass NMUSIC just by claiming they pass NMUSIC; they pass NMUSIC by virtue of the quality of sourcing that can be provided to verify the claim. This requires such a fundamental WP:NUKEANDPAVE rewrite that I initially prodded it as promotional/advertising — a decision I'm still completely comfortable with — but it was then recreated a second time in exactly the same bad and unsourced format and still isn't entitled to be kept in this form. I'm happy to withdraw this if the article can be rewritten and sourced properly, but in this form it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Not notable. I searched but could not find sources. The award could be not true. How come even Pt:WP not discover this artist? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: The award is true and the source confirms it. And he was part of at least two notable musical acts: Soraya Moraes (with whom he earned the award) and Oficina G3. I'm not saying I support the article being kept in its current state, but it wouldn't take more than some minutes to save it. Victão Lopes Fala! 01:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
What we require is reliable source coverage of the topic — for example, while I don't have any substantive reason to doubt that it's true, we don't have an actual source for his birthdate, for the fact that he's from Brazil or for his membership in Oficina G3. While it's certainly possible that there are enough sources to clean it up with, a WP:BLP is not allowed to stick around in this state while we wait for that to happen months or years from now; a BLP has to have one or more reliable sources in it immediately. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to sandboxing this instead of deleting it outright, if it hasn't had one or more good sources added to it by close, but BLPs require proper reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I know, I'm just saying his notability is guaranteed. I'm not asking anyone to wait, articles can be easily recreated in a better shape later anyway. Had I come across this article, I'd probably redirect it to Oficina G3 as per WP:MUSBIO - indeed, that page was a redirect before @Marcioflycarvalho recreated it. I'm tagging him here because he expressed interest in keeping the page but was not alerted of this discussion. Maybe he's got something to say. Victão Lopes Fala! 00:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That's true. As I've often pointed out, an AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article; it just means they don't get to keep this version. A subject that's previously been deleted by AFD can be recreated in the future if a good article citing good sources can be written (we've got plenty of topics where a bad early version got canned, but then the topic attained a stronger claim of notability and/or better sourceability, so somebody wrote a better article that now qualified to be kept.) It's also worth noting, however, that Oficina G3 mentions, but does not actually source, the past membership of a "Marcio Woody Carvalho" — which means that Marcioflycarvalho is the subject himself, and this is therefore also a conflict of interest. (Not that that's a deletion reason in and of itself, but it does help tip the balance if the article's already problematic for other reasons.) Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you believe if I told you I hadn't noticed the editor's name is the same as the subject? Anyway, he has the right to comment, even though I agree he is not the best editor to work on this. Victão Lopes Fala! 18:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I am sure Victão Lopes will save this article in a quarter of an hour or so, possibly with multiple independent reliable sources in the Portuguese language. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
...and what makes you be so sure that I'm going to do it? Victão Lopes Fala! 00:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, maybe not you, but somebody has to. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

KoodibooK[edit]

KoodibooK (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "KoodibooK" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This orphaned article may not meet notability requirements. It was previously AfDed but received no comments. — Rod talk 17:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am unable to find signficant coverage about this to establish notability. There is some local Bath coverage in the Bath Chronicle like this article, but coverage in a local paper is insufficient. --Whpq (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010(talk) 02:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: The Forrester Research link is paywalled and could be the most solid reference, but it isn't clear whether it is a reference about the sector or this firm, with the former most likely. Other than that, searches are just turning up local start-up coverage. No evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability found. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - The preamble verbiage available without payment clearly indicates that the report is on the sector. But even if it were about Koodibook itself, I'm don't believe that it would count towards notability. Forrestor, and similar companies will write research reports on demand. If a Forrestor client asks for a report on something they haven't covered before, they will initiate a report on it if the client desires. I would rely on the Forrestor report for the purprose of verifiability, but I'm not for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of cultural icons of France[edit]

List of cultural icons of France (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of cultural icons of France" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. Edison (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The problem is not with sources. The problem is that "cultural icon" is an overused buzzword with blurry definition. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among the Dreyfus affair, Brigitte Bardot, and the Alsace hamster. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of cultural icons of Germany[edit]

List of cultural icons of Germany (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of cultural icons of Germany" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. It is not hard to find reliable sources for Bach and Beethoven as "cultural icons" but some of the other entries might be deleted if tagged for a few months as needing citations. that said, deletion is not an acceptable substitute for editing. Edison (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among Vita-Cola, the Christian Democratic Party, and Rammstein. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of cultural icons of Italy[edit]

List of cultural icons of Italy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of cultural icons of Italy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. Itayl is clearly blessed with numerous structures, artists, cities, and other "cultural icons" called such in books. Edison (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among Parma ham, Luigi Nono, and the Etruscan civilization. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of cultural icons of the Netherlands[edit]

List of cultural icons of the Netherlands (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of cultural icons of the Netherlands" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. Not Italy, but has Rembrandt . Edison (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among M.C. Escher, Pieter Hooft, and the Friesian Holstein. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think an overall decision should be made whether this kind of lists are desirable, personally, I am not convinced. Many sources will be contradictory, I expect. The present list here is incredible, couldn't believe my eyes when I was going through it. I mean, Roosendaal, a "cultural icon"? The prime minister??? Jan Peter Balkenende??? If kept, 90% of this list should be nuked. The monarchy may be part of Dutch culture (albeit a recent addition, given its republican history), but the current king or his aunt certainly are not. One of the worst examples of idiosyncratic listcruft that I have seen in a long time. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of cultural icons of Russia[edit]

List of cultural icons of Russia (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of cultural icons of Russia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. Look for "cultural icon" refs for some of the music, literature, science, political history and military history. Edison (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among dressed herring, Ivan Shishkin, and Hedgehog in the Fog. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of cultural icons of Spain[edit]

List of cultural icons of Spain (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of cultural icons of Spain" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. Edison (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among the tuna pot, the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, and Penelope Cruz. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of cultural icons of Wales[edit]

List of cultural icons of Wales (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of cultural icons of Wales" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of cultural icons of Scotland[edit]

List of cultural icons of Scotland (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of cultural icons of Scotland" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep (The following excerpt from my Keep argument in 2011 still applies in general): Seems an obvious topic for a Wikipedia article. Periodic cleanup is an obvious requirement for such a list, to restrict it to things which have or which are notable enough to potentially have articles, and to remove vanispamcruftisements. The topic "Scottish cultural icons" is itself found in five results at Google Book Search, and "Scottish Icons" turns up additional relevant books such as [17] which lists "tartan, whiskey, smoked salmon, bagpipes and the Scottish landscape," as well as Harry Lauder, ancient castles, the kilt, bloody clan history, & Braveheart. [18] lists as "Scottish icons" Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Battle of Culloden. .... A candidate for membership on the list should have a reference stating that it qualifies, if not in those exact words. Not everything in Scotland is or was a "Scottish icon" but many such can be readily referenced. (I would keep "cultural" in the title to make it clear it is not about Greek Orthodox religious images). One book noted that they are the things depicted on postcards one sends home from Scotland. Edison (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among the Musselburgh Golf Club, the Glencoe Massacre, and Dr. Finlay's Casebook. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Andrew P. Witt[edit]

Andrew P. Witt (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Andrew P. Witt" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

WP:PERPETRATOR should apply. Tagged for notability 11 months ago and virtually no improvement or expansion which makes this article suitable for WP has occurred. – S. Rich (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010(talk) 02:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)