Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:27, 7 September 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 September	8 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calichera

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large and exceptionally notable company. One of many bad nominations. Lots of sources cover these subjects in depth. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the sort of basic article that we should have been making ourselves for all large companies. It's our fault that we need puppets to do it. More material can be added later, as for all WP articles. . 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banmédica

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very large Chilean company with plenty of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Drummed

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

This is not quite CSD territory, but the references are awfully thin. The first looks okay, but is all about the band without mentioning the subject of this article. The rest of the references are bare mentions of the band in low quality sources. Searching for more references gives similarly sparse results. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to locate sufficient coverage for this person to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 08:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Taipei Times story looks substantial and the bands he's been in have done some world touring, but where is the coverage of this individual? If there were article on the bands he's played in maybe it could be merged. Maybe another editor can find better sourcing? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CAP S.A.

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep oodles of sources cover this company very substantially. This is a major miner. not sure what the issue is. Seems to be one of many ill conceived deletion nominations. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minera S.A.

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Chilean conglomerate with over a $1 billion in annual sales? Manifestly notable and plenty of coverage no doubt available to expand article content from additional sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the opening sentence of the article I moved it to Minera Valparaiso. Not sure where the other overly generic (Miner Inc?) name came from. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wann

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

BLP with only primary sources. I dream of horses (T) @ 16:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These references are just primary sources of course and primary sources are not enough to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines.WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin -- you are of course correct that primary sources are not sufficient. But have you looked at the non-primary sources? We have to look beyond the article, for what sources exist, in !voting at AfD. As wp:AFD states: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding quite a bit of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GNG-satisfying sources exist.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I added a couple of newspaper references to the article yesterday. However looking at these again, as well as those in the link provided by Candleabracadabra above, I do not feel that there is sufficient rising above routine listings to the point of demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look at the many newspaper references here?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the items in the Google link are a mix of PR items and event announcements - they fall short of being substantial coverage. I had gone back the article today intending to clean it up (as the text has the tone of a performer's press-pack); that was when my view became that it was insufficient for WP:ENTERTAINER. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While those are certainly there, aren't you also seeing articles such as this NY Times article and this article?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but - as is also true of the two articles I referenced into the article itself - the subject gets mentioned in the context of a wider article (often prefixed "a" rather than "the"), rather than being the subject of the article himself. There could be an argument that an accumulation of passing mentions adds up, but I think that needs to be as support for at least one piece which plainly does demonstrate notability through full focus on the subject. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Battle Angel Alita: Last Order. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Type-V mutant

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

No claim to notability, no significant third party coverage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorball Sven Manguard Wha? 03:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The topic certainly deserves a mention in the main Battle Angel Alita: Last Order article as an important part of the plot. Otherwise, with no significant coverage from secondary sources, this fails WP:GNG and shouldn't be a stand-alone article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a full history export of this article to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Type-V_mutant Dream Focus 20:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the best place for it anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle Angel Alita: Last Order per above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnahari Baral

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

1.No credible references. The main reference is the person's own website. It seems the page is created either by himself and/or his relatives. Totally created by the user:laysforme

2.References not enough to really suggest that this person is of any importance neither notable. 3. The only other reference is wikipedia itself- not accepted in wikipedia. 4. Meets G11 of WP:Speedy Deletion criteria. This article is nothing more than an advertising stunt and spam. 5. Meets the following reasons for deletion: -Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion -Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) -Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes -Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed -Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) -Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons -Redundant or otherwise useless templates -Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia SupernovaeIA (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: Here is a valid proof that this article is an advertising stunt: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picture_of_Swapnil_Baral.png The user laysforme is the person's son who has contributed totallly to this article. He created his own page which was recently deleted too.SupernovaeIA (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The best sources I could find:

From the article ref section:

Atom, Netra, ed. Geetkar Krishna Hari Baral: Shirjana Ra Samalochana. Kathmandu: Tanneri Prakasan, 2002. Print.
Interview by Bijay Lama. Black and White. Image Television. Kathmandu, Summer 2013. Television.
Interview by Hemanta Bramha. Silpi Ra Saili. AV News Television. Kathmandu, 2011. Television.
Interview by Naresh Bhattarai. Love and Life. Tarai Television. Kathmandu, Winter 2010. Television.
Interview by Sushma KC. Kehi Mitho Baat Garau. Himalaya Televison. Kathmandu, Summer 2012. Television.
"Interview with Dr. Krishnahari Baral." Interview by Bibek Regmi. Aparichit Yatra. AV News Television. Kathmandu, Winter 2010. Television.

Dont think all these are able to suggest the person is notable?Cant find any of these interviews online either.SupernovaeIA (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found on Google:

[1], endorsement for Barel's book by the President of Nepal.
[2], media interview.
[3], "Krishnahari Baral is one of the most successful contemporary lyricists of Nepal"
[4], summary of statements about Baral
[5] "lyrics by veterans like .. Krishna Hari Baral"
[6] "one of the most popular lyricists in the realm of Nepali song"
[7] "..renowned lyricist Dr. Krishna Hari Baral.."

Suspect there is more in foreign-language sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG, noted Nepali language lyricist. Sourcing for Nepal and India is very challenging (see WP:INDAFD). More so finding sources for an artist working in the Nepali language (no Latin characters), compounded by no option for Google Translate. Yet we have all these available English sources praising, including an endorsement from the President of Nepal. It's plenty considering the difficulties. It would probably do more harm than good to delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professor of Nepali at what I think is the main Nepalese university? Certainly notable, by common sense. The refs above about the importance of his poetry are sufficient to show notability there also DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure? Being a professor does not pass the WP:Notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.158.217 (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The acclaim he has received in reliable sources as a Nepali lyricist is enough to make him notable, and when you add that he is a professor of Nepali at Nepal's best university, a literary critic, a prize-winning poet and a textbook author, I conclude that the article should be kept. That being said, the current version has quite a bit of puffery, and should br rewritten from the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No quorum - NPASR. —Darkwind (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is All Around (EP)

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

I am nominating a group of eps by the one artist. They lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Just a bunch on bad external links trying to publicise the album. The only references are the artist own site, soundcloud, bandcamp, a shop. None independent reliable sources. The external links are just linkspam. Others nominated are:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

included on 3 September. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that the artist is clearly notable, I have to wonder whether deleting all these related articles is the best approach. If we have a glut of articles on the releases without much more content than basic details and tracklisting, bringing them all together in a fairly detailed discography would probably be the best approach. --Michig (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arthur Loves Plastic discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm Warfare

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

No notable ep. It lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Falls short of WP:NALBUMS. Is mentioned in passing in the first two of the references. The third is dead and was from 2004 (unlikely to be a review of a 1995 ep). The other two are just internet archive and a listing. No independent reliable sources give the ep any depth of coverage. The external links are just linkspam. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arthur Loves Plastic discography which is currently just a list of titles with a distinct lack of detail. --Michig (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka Digital Repository

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

Unsourced article on minor database. Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka - it won't take long. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an acceptable solution. --Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A borderline case - multiple reliable sources APPEAR to exist. No consensus either way (non-admin closure) ES &L 10:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Lagassé

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

A minor NDP politician. Ran last in the 1989 leadership race and 5th in BC riding in the last federal election. The article has been largely written by User:Rlagasse, an obvious conflict of interest. No other notable features. Recommend Redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Canadian federal election. Suttungr (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Ref WP:POLITICIAN #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say keep. The article is undoubtedly in need of revision, but Lagassé did receive extensive media coverage when he ran for the federal NDP leadership, so many years ago. CJCurrie (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If press coverage during an election were the criteria, every political candidate would be considered notable. That's why we created special rules for politicians. See WP:POLITICIAN #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed WP:POLITICIAN, and it's my belief that Lagassé fulfills the criterion of having received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." I agree that simply receiving "press coverage" isn't sufficient grounds for notability; this particular coverage, however, was both national and extensive (albeit that it's not very well reflected in the current version of the article). CJCurrie (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National and extensive coverage? Before I voted delete I checked the big commercial databases: Gale, ProQuest, EBSCO, JSTOR - they all came up empty. These databases are quite extensive archiving 10s of thousands of newspapers, journals, magazines etc.. in the US and Canada going back 30 years or more. Happy to be proven wrong of course. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ProQuest (which includes many Canadian papers) gives me 294 hits (292 articles and 2 books) for "Roger Lagasse", while Factiva gives me 111. CJCurrie (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which ProQuest your searching but I'm still coming up empty. Why not cite some major newspaper articles that you believe are relevant. I will verify by searching on the newspaper website, or submit a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to log off for the night, but I'll (probably) be able to add some sources to the article tomorrow. Can I request that people keep an open mind until then? CJCurrie (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Update I've added sources from Factiva now. I recognize that Lagassé was never in the upper echelons of notability, even in 1989, and I grant that this is something of a borderline case ... but I still think he's received enough media coverage to justify retention of the article. CJCurrie (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I was able to verify on the Toronto Star website that there are numerous articles from the year 1989. Can't view the articles without a sub but they do show the index. My only comment would be these all seem related to his political campaign which is normal for anyone running for office. I'd really like to see some notability beyond his campaign bids since the spirit of WP:POLITICIAN #3 is that we don't consider notable people who ran for office that did not win. There are some more recent articles there but unable to view what they say in terms of subject matter and depth of coverage of Roger Lagassé. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the article already follows the spirit of WP:POLITICIAN #3 as it stands. Defeated candidates aren't automatically considered notable, but in this case the subject did receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Lagassé was a candidate for a national leadership position and, as such, received coverage in national media outlets over a period of several months. Its true that he didn't receive much in the way of intensive coverage, but I'd argue that such coverage as he did receive was significant (albeit, as I say, that it's close to the borderline in this case). CJCurrie (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the coverage "significant"? Read Anne Delong's comment below. It sounds like the coverage was about a horse in the back of the pack who never had a chance of winning. Lots of people run for high office who never have a chance, sometimes they get human interest stories, but it's not significant on its own to warrant an Encyclopedia article, unless the coverage really is intensive. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there will always be some disagreement as to what constitutes "significant" coverage. I've already noted that the coverage Lagassé received during the leadership contest was national and extensive, but not intensive. Said coverage certainly made him a nationally known figure, albeit only for a short period of time. My view is that this is enough to justify the continued existence of the article (even though, as I've already mentioned, it's a borderline case). CJCurrie (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the Toronto Star back issues. In most of the many articles in 1989 he is just mentioned as an also ran candidate. At most there is a sentence or two here and there. However, because there are so many articles about the candidates, the paper does confirm many of the facts in the article: That he was a fringe candidate, a school teacher, was the only bilingual candidate, had never held office, had some regional support but no real chance of winning, objected to a debate being held in a luxury hotel, complained about his fellow candidates' "Tory bashing", showed up to a debate in his van and asked if anyone could put him up for the night, and received 53 votes at the leadership convention. There are two other major newspapers in Toronto to which I don't have access. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By using a proper accent in the search engine, I found a number of references, including THIS and THIS, and someone seems to have written a short book about him HERE. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These sources are almost worthless. The first is a bare mention, the second is a blog to which anybody may contribute, the third appears to be a vanity press. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

There are five references in the first book; four are bare mentions, the fifth tells about a vote at the convention to cover his election deposit. The second is an article mostly about him written in a publication with an editor, two publishers and two reporters, and was written by the editor, not a blogger. A small note in the corner of the book cover reveals that it is largely created from Wikipedia articles, so thumbs down on that source. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all leadership candidates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?. Delete failed politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics

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

Fails Notability as per WP:ORG and copy vio of www.aopt.org Flat Out let's discuss it 00:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable society. It exists, it publishes a journal, it has meetings, but I could find no evidence that its existence has been taken note of by independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:ORG. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They also publish their own journal, Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics. Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) can also be used to provide notability. The copyvio needs to be fixed. Some of the websites in the external links to mention this association. I'll try to add references and other improvements to this article. Star6763 (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
mild Keep - It has minor mention from other organizations, some of those are included from organizations in external links. There is mention, but not enough information from those mentions to add to article. However, opinion on this not strong. Star6763 (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon Fulcher

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

Web of Science lists 19 articles for "Fulcher E", that have been cited 172 times for an h-index of 7, which is rather far from meeting WP:ACADEMIC (even assuming all these articles are his, which they are not). No evidence that subject meets any other criteria for inclusion. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- the cited information is incorrect/incomplete, & i am left wondering why the nominator (who had previously *co-prodded the same article) is so insistent on this article's removal?

see: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=eamon+fulcher

and: https://www.google.com/search?q=Eamon+Fulcher&num=100&newwindow=1&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&hl=en&prmdo=1&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=pQ8fUtGuLbO72QXF94GICg&ved=0CAwQ_AUoBg

that seems a like a lot more than 19 articles "(even assuming all these articles are his, which they are not)" to me. also; i'd like clarification on what the nominator meant by that comment, please?

finally, i will note that the relevant wp guideline clearly states that h-index ratings ARE NOT decisive criteria, are not entirely accurate or reliable, & should only be used as a "rough guide" in forming any opinions re: academic notability.

aside from the papers, the subject has authored & co-authored multiple textbooks in his field, widely used in course work.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that said, i do agree that the article would benefit from a good, thorough revising.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before responding to this, I'd like Lx121 to try and give WP:AGF a good read. Thanks! Now to the issue at hand. Not all 19 articles listed in WoS are from this E. Fulcher, I don't see what the problem is with that. And indeed, nobody contests that this person has published. What is asserted is that neither the citation rates nor the h-index indicate that his works have made any significant impact, which is what WP:ACADEMIC is about. Yes, a low h-index does not prove that the person is not notable, but that is something that is impossible to prove anyway (there always is a possibility that somewhere there is a source showing notability). All that I am saying is the opposite, that I do not find evidence of notability (and a high h-index would prove notability). Publishing (articles or books) is what academics do, in and of itself that doesn't make them notable. What we need is proof of notability (as evidenced by reliable sources) and I don't see that. --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello, & i am sorry, but it seems to me that you are presenting inaccurate/misleading information in arguing for the deletion, & then pushing for it rather hard. to me, that makes it hard to agf.

as regards h-index, i quote you this section from wp:academic:

"Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution since their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. Also, they are discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citations than others."

as regards notability, i invite you to examine the links i have provided above.

when the subject has written basic course textbooks, which are WIDELY used, has contributed material to other textbooks, is cited, thanked, etc. in yet other textbooks, AND has the number of papers & the "cite scores", for what are highly specialized topics, as shown @ google scholar, i think that person meets the "minimum requirement" for academic notability.

any decent directory of people working in c-b psych would include an entry for him as a top-level expert. google his name, & he comes out as the top & most-frequently mentioned individual; google his name with "phd" attached & he's the ONLY person who comes up. i'm not really clear on what more is needed, to meet with your approval?

Lx 121 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and try to understand what I wrote before casting doubt on my motivations. A high h-index is a very good indication of notability. A low h-index does not prove absence of notability, but it certainly isn't proof of notability either. So when mentioning a low h-index, all I intend to say with that is that I don't find an indication for notability in the h-index. When I cite the low citation counts, that doesn't prove absence of notability either, but it does show that this person is not notable because he's highly cited either (WP:PROF#1). Cognitive psychology and brain sciences are a high-citation density field, by the way, so we'd expect a lot more citations than for, say, a mathematician. I have no idea why you think that googling somebody's name and that person then coming out on top means anything (I have a rather unique name myself and if you google it, I come out on top. So what?) The GS citation counts are a bit higher than those obtained in WoS (as expected, because GS is much more inclusive than WoS), but nothing spectacular either. They are insufficient to establish notability. The only thing I see that possible could establish notability would be the text books. However, just the bare fact that he wrote these books is not enough. You have written several times now that they are "widely used". I'm perfectly willing to believe that, if there are reliable, secondary sources that show this. I, too, wrote a textbook with some colleagues. About 400 copies were sold. Big deal. Significantly more is needed for notability to be established. So before citing more from WP:PROF, try to understand what it says first. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per clear exposition of Randy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular the citation counts do not make a convincing case for criterion C1 and the other criteria as well do not seem to be there. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Abraham

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

Note worthy but not sure she needs her own article page, no other article links to her Lady Lotus (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. My initial reading of the page was that it would easy to establish notability, but it turned out to be very difficult. I think it may be too early in her career to write a Wikipedia article. As it stands, this article seems overly promotional. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmi Albrechtsen

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

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

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

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

Purely promotional biography about a journalist and a book she's written, with nothing to indicate the notability of the subject. The article in Time Newsfeed has nothing to do with Sharmi Albrechtsen, the article in The Copenhagen Post is about someone else and only mentions Sharmi Albrechtsen briefly and the links to Oprah do not in any way make Sharmi Albrechtsen notable. The impression I get when reading the article is that the subject of it wanted an article about herself on Wikipedia and had someone upload it for her. With one of the reasons for that being that the style of this article is much more polished and grammatically correct than other contributions from the creator of the article (such as this edit summary from Zebra Finch: I have been bred many times of zebra finch, normally its can give good breed from 6 months of their age), a difference in style and language skills that makes me doubt that the creator wrote it... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sharmi has an entire page dedicated to all the coverage she has received: Sharmi in the Media. This should be enough for her to be considered notable. Mimalman freeway (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Mimalman freeway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep For a blogger and self-published author (Lulu) she has unusual level of international coverage for her book/blog on Danes and happiness, on Oprah's Life Class[8], BBC[9], German television network ARTE [10], South Korea's OhMyNews [11], House Hunters International (HGTV)[12], Danish lifestyle magazine Mad&Bolig[13]. I can't find any book reviews and none of the pieces are really about Sharmi, except OhMyNews. So there are good and bad here, but I am willing to give her a chance, based on GNG multiple reliable sources. If in 5 or 10 years nothing hew has happened it would be easier delete but don't see the rush to delete yet. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too many primary sources are on the article with too few secondary sources, so this article needs more support. A few more secondary sources besides OhMyNews above that haven't surfaced yet:

1. http://embrace-yourself.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Woman_you_deserve_to_be_happy.291202150.pdf

2. http://dispatch.dis.dk/story/danes-rejoice-life%E2%80%99s-simple-pleasures

3. New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

4. http://www.indiaeveryday.in/Video/Search.aspx?q=sharmi Baerdorf (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Baerdorf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of those links establish any notability what so ever for Sharmi Albrechtsen. The NYT article is about happy Danes in general and doesn't even mention Sharmi Albrechtsen, she's mentioned only in passing in one of the other links and is just one of many names mentioned as references in another. And the Indiaeveryday-link is a just long list of videos containing the name "Sharmi" in the title, mostly music videos with an artist by that name. Baerdorf is a brand new SPA account, obviously created specifically for this AfD-discussion, so I would like to point out that this AfD is not about getting as many "keep" votes as possible (that is it is not a majority vote) but about seeing if the subject of the article, Sharmi Albrechtsen, is notable enough to have an article here (see WP:Notability). Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we've already seen two brand new SPA accounts comment/vote on this AfD I want to point out that users who have a conflict of interest (for example being or representing the subject of the article) should state so in their comments. Also please note this quote from Wikipedia:AfD: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Rhomberg

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

No sources or references to satisfy WP:GNG & Fails WP:PORNBIO as not won a "well-known and significant industry award" or any award at all. Finnegas (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 20. Snotbot t • c » 11:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has 4 links to external DBs and exists in 3 other languages. Why should the English-speaking world not know about this person? Considering WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO: the Josephine Mutzenbacher movie is a cult porn. YellowOnline (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the 4 links to external DBs do not establish notability. None of the other articles have any other sources. Can you provide references to support your claim that "the Josephine Mutzenbacher movie is a cult porn". Finnegas (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles in any language cite reliable sources. I tagged the article as unsourced because there is nothing to support the article's biographical content. Links to film databases don't establish notability. Yes, I've heard of Sensational Janine, but the significance of starring in a "cult" porn film needs acknowledgement by reliable sources. A Google News search yields one passing mention of Rhomberg in the film. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, I've updated the article in question with some of the references cited below and some others. Guy1890 (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies criteria 2 of PORNBIO with her starring role in Sensational Janine. If you look at the GBooks hits for Sensational Janine [14], the fourth link quotes, "Sensational Janine has been considered by a number of adult film reviewers as one of the best foreign adult films released in the... (United States)". Jim Holliday regards it as an "all time foreign favorite".[15] The Film Journal regards it "one of the most successful x-rated foreign films ever to cross the Atlantic".[16]. I can only imagine what the Austrian and German sources say since I am unable to research them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your support for this article and for looking through Google Books. YellowOnline (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fundamentally unsourced BLP, without prejudice to recreation as a redirect if a film article is written or as an article if reliably sourced biographical information can be found. This article perpetuates the unsourced and unreferenced association of the porn performer with a clearly identifiable person of the same name, and suppression is needed before that claim is spread across the web! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The character is not clearly identifiable, likely fictional, and if it was based on a real person, that person is likely dead. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite definitely not the identifiable living person I referred a bit vaguely to; note the content I removed from the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's an ongoing discussion about this article here as well. Guy1890 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After thinking about it some more, it appears that this (former?) actress satisfies the "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" of PORNBIO for her lead role in "porn classic" Josefine Mutzenbacher – Wie sie wirklich war (or Sensational Janine), which was apparently "one of the most successful foreign (European) x-rated films". I also note that the above BLP concern was not acted upon further by anyone. Being associated with adult films isn't necessarily a negative thing to everyone, and I'm not even sure that this actress used her real name in any of her adult film career. This article does need more citations though. Guy1890 (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This argument, advanced earlier, waters down the PORNBIO #2 standard far too much. No sources describe the film in terms that approach "iconic," "groundbreaking," or "blockbuster." The sources cited by Morbidthoughts don't go much beyond establishing the film as notable under the GNG. "Considered by a number of reviewers as one of the best," for example, hardly equates to "iconic." We cannot ignore the fact that this article has no reliable sources for its biographical content; the two porn databases used as references do not satisfy RS requirements; the book/magazine citations support statements regarding the film, not the performer. And the just-advanced argument that associating an identifiable living person with a porn performer, without a shred of supporting evidence, isn't a BLP violation because "it isn't necessarily a negative thing to everyone" demonstrates only the proponent's utter lack of understanding of essential BLP policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "No sources describe the film in terms that approach 'iconic,' 'groundbreaking,' or 'blockbuster'"...only that the film was "one of the most successful foreign (European) x-rated films", which is basically the same, exact thing.
- "the two porn databases used as references do not satisfy RS requirements"...which is an opinion, not a fact at all.
- "And the just-advanced argument that associating an dentifiable living person with a porn performer, without a shred of supporting evidence". As stated before, there's no evidence that this actress used her real name during her film career. Guy1890 (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This does seem to meet WP:PORNBIO #2 as indicated by this machine translated text of this original which includes: "Barely repealed the ban on pornography for adults in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1975, hiked many filmmakers in the new genre of porn film about and did pioneering work in there. The quality of the films was at that time still quite high, and thanks to the existing budget and a technically sound approach, could produce porn, traded up today around the world as a classic. Finally came the gentry usually from the film industry and brought with them for this reason some decades of experience. Already in the first years were not only short films, known as loops, produced, but also porn feature film length. It was set free the imagination, concerning the content and also the title of the film. Just the title of old movies were like to cast off and used in many short films. But there were already existing stories and movies where one content served. It was to the fabric around the figure of the "Sanitätsgefreiten"Neumann, on the other hand, it was the figure of the literary classics of porn "Josefine Mutzenbacher" which was already some years before, just like the "Sanitätsgefreite Neumann" in a sex film release in theaters. This substance, which tells of a Viennese whore, and which caused much sensation and censorship in book form, has offered wonderful to, to be filmed as a pornographic Variant.
The first "Josefine Mutzenbacher"-the experienced Director Hans Billian turned porn film, which today is seen as one of the best porn of all time, in 1976. Starring at that time embodied the Wienerin Patricia Rhomberg, which perfectly fit into this role because their proper dialect."

This describes Patricia Rhomberg as the lead star in this film that "... hiked many filmmakers in the new genre of porn film about and did pioneering work in there." which meets PORNBIO's "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography;" Technical 13 (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Ore Cup

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

I question whether there is a genuine rivalry here. Aside from the fact that many of the links in the reference section are dead, those that are still live talk of a "rivalry" established before the teams have even played each other. This sounds to me like an attempt to hype up the match and the league in general rather than a genuine rivalry. Additionally, they have only been playing each other for four seasons (and the article itself concedes it is considered a "minor rivalry"). I would think a much longer tradition of matches needs to be established before it can be said there is a genuine rivalry which passes WP:GNG and needs its own article. Fenix down (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry/competition. Giant Snowman 09:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose request early close via the Snowball Clause - Passes the requirements for WP:GNG. The author is inventing his own guidelines and weasel words; how long exactly does a rivalry have to exist to pass Fenix's "long tradition" weasel word clause? Where can I find an official "long tradition" guideline? Who decides how 'genuine' a rivalry is if not the reliable sources? These weasel words are an attempt to justify why we should ignore GNG. While it could use a re-write and the addition of sources, it is clearly notable as per GNG. That's all that matters. I'd also like to point out the author failed to follow WP:BEFORE and has not bothered to discuss the topic on the talk page for any of the half-dozen related articles he nominated en-mass today. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 10:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 10:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the notion of a long tradition is not attempting to circumvent GNG, in fact it is being used precisely to show that as there have only been a handful of games and there is no indication of anything notable beyond the fact that the games have been played. No significant chain of notable incidents seem to be connected with this match. Perhaps in time a genuine rivalry will develop, but it is difficult to show fulfillment of GNG after only a couple of seasons. Please also heed your own advice re weasel words. Phrases like "clearly notable" without showing how are disengenuous. Fenix down (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable as its covered specifically by multiple news articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the individual matches are covered by sources, but the cup itself is unofficial and so is non-notable. There is nothing in the sources however, which discusses the rivalry itself in any detail, which is what this article is about. All the sources noted do is present a WP:SYNTH of a series of matches from which a "rivalry" is derived. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For same reasons as Shiftchange. The lack of official status doesn't make it non-notable.Hughesdarren (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfield EP

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

Non-notable EP: "Only 25 copies were released". Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Yeah, the "only 25 copies were released" line really sets off warning bells. I admit I didn't even bother to try doing a google search after reading that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Skies and Sleepless Mondays

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

Non-notable demo. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to All the Stars and Boulevards. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll Disappear

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

Non-notable single Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page would probably work as a Redirect to All the Stars and Boulevards. There is not-enough secondary sources to indicate this song can have its own Wikipedia article, unless me and Walter Görlitz are missing something here. I'd also like to make a mention of the original research about the cover included in this article. 和DITOR E tails 22:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All the Stars and Boulevards. Plausible search term as a single by a notable act, but this song does not appear to warrant an independent article as I could not find significant coverage for it in reliable sources. Gong show 15:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Can't Love, Can't Hurt. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Love, Can't Hurt EP

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

non-notable single Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So why not merge it to the album? --Michig (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Augustana (band)#Discography, or Can't Love, Can't Hurt (the album of the same name), whichever is more appropriate. The nomination is technically invalid, as this isn't a single; it's an EP, as even the name tells you. A Google search for the EP turns up Wordpress sites and Blogspot sites, and that's as reliable as they get. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ex-gay movement. Ged UK 12:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OneByOne

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

Non-notable organization. No sources specifically about the organization found. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Ex-gay movement, from where it was originally split off, IIRC. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tito☸Dutta 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ex-gay movement, per JClemens.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Autodesk Media and Entertainment. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IFF (software)

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

Wikipedia is not a change log. That's what this article is. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I suspected this to be spam but have discovered that:
1. The software has been noted (and therefore may be notable).[17][18][19][20]
2. Typically, this wasn't originally Autodesk software, but is reported to have been originally created by Discreet Logic,[21] which may help in further searches for references.

-- Trevj (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All true; all true. But even so, do you think we can salvage anything of this mess of an article? I believe not. IMHO, we are probably going to have to re-write the whole thing from the very first letter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both good points. Clearly the table of prices and question marks with no citations is not appropriate, but the general history seems notable. Some coverage of this needs to be in Wikipedia, and just deleting with no trace seems a slight step backward. But fixing this mess would be time consuming. One idea would be to beef up the Autodesk Media and Entertainment#Creative Finishing Products section. (Although section headings need need work too, to be down-cased after the first word, sigh.) So how about to merge IFF (software), Autodesk Smoke, and Inferno (software) into that section. All three of those articles are badly sourced and not very wikified. Ideally the chronology would be presented in prose, in simple past tense (never using language like "now" or "currently") with citations. If that section gets too long, it could always be spun back out into one or more articles. The incoming links (such as {{Compositing Software}} need work too. W Nowicki (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I agree with the merge. I understand in AfD, it's always on the table and I have no prejudice against keeping what's worth keeping; indeed Wikipedia encourages documenting significant changes over time. And, you seem to have just found the suitable target too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tito☸Dutta 16:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Autodesk - insufficient third party coverage of product for stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I actually agree with W Nowick's idea. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would still prefer to merge into Autodesk Media and Entertainment and keep that as a separate article. The company Discreet Logic has a rich history before it was acquired that needs to be told (it even went public, so should have sources in SEC documents etc.). The parent Autodesk should cover enough already, such as the AutoCAD era and focus on the California operations which are somewhat independent technically if not financially. Trying to keep an article up to date on exact releases or each product seems futile; one can always go to the company pages and get the latest. I think that was the original motivation for this AfD: the litany of release details seems to obscure the forest for the trees, to twist a metaphor. I actually did one step to updating the AM&E article yesterday, but could use help if that is consensus, or have patience and I can find time in the next few days. Some of the info was inconsistent or out of date, and urls dead etc. W Nowicki (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Nowicki. The Technical Oscar mentioned in the IFF article strongly implies notability for something, but the articles are currently in such bad shape that a merge would be an improvement. If the Autodesk article eventually becomes too long, subtopics can be split out into separate articles per Wikipedia:Summary style, but we're not there yet and there needs to be a better organization for those subtopics than we now have. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to other article and decide then whether this content should be kept. Some is sourced - if it is important then more could be. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is unsourced except for two Autodesk announcements and one PRNewswire report of a press release by Autodesk. If it is unsourced, it isn't notable or verifiable. In that case, it doesn't belong anywhere—if it were merged into Autodesk Media and Entertainment, then it would be appropriate to remove it as unsourced. Autodesk Media and Entertainment is mostly sourced to company announcements anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI've been looking at the sources for science technology academy awards, but the online material does not go back this far for this particular one. Judging by their later material, there seem to be 5 or 6 awards each year. It seems reasonable to me that there might be that many notable products & developments, but I haven;t checked for articles on all of them. I think that it either proves notability as a major national award or goers a long way to showing it. However, the existing information in the article is inappropriate--we do include informations of the major versions of major products, but not to this degree of detail. I'd keep it separate; there is enough information, but I'd summarize the data. (btw, this is a case where some indication of pricing is relevant to understanding the nature of the product.) DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: surely if the award claim is unsourced, it shouldn't be considered except as a hint for WP:BEFORE. If we can't find a source, then we should ignore it, shouldn't we? - Pointillist (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG. I am very surprised. Your assessment is correct; but I can certainly not connect the dots from "existing information in the article is inappropriate" to "Keep". Indeed, what constitutes an article but its contents? And contents in this case are yet to claim the name of the "article" before getting down to "notable article"? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it means the existing information can be easily edited so it becomes appropriate, and therefore we can keep it and edit. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - I've now sourced the Academy Scientific and Technical Award. The award itself might not be a big deal: AMPAS handed out 13 others in 1998 but at least it provides an independent source to say that these products ever existed. So let's re-write and keep the article, merging in all the content from Inferno (software) (which can become a redirect) and Autodesk Media and Entertainment#Creative finishing. The release list is 0% sourced and IMO should be terminated with extreme prejudice (per Wikipedia:NOTCHANGELOG)—the only excuse for such tables is the significant changes column and that's almost entirely empty in this case. If there's a source for the typical cost it can go into the body of the article. - Pointillist (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "Autodesk Media and Entertainment" seems to be appropriate in this case. Bcharles (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan McNair

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

BLP, unreferenced, does not appear to meet notability guidelines either as a lawyer or as an author. Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His books are very similar to the Timewaster letters which all have individual pages in wikipedia as well as an author page. I'm new to Wikipedia let me know if there is anything important lacking that I have omitted and need to add. Thanks - IanBrumpton (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Ian, nothing personal - I hadn't realised you were so new - just saw an unreferenced BLP. I see the article has been updated slightly - personally, I would say that some of the claims still need references but will happily withdraw this nomination if sources are found and notability proven. Horatio Snickers (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cleaned up the page some, and added some refs (didn't bother with inline cites yet). Able to find 4 solid refs, 2 are offline but the Evening Post is in-depth about the author. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help tidying up the page! IanBrumpton (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "King of Spoofs" is a really good piece. Off-line but access at Resource Request. Three reviews is minimal for WP:AUTHOR #3 but I think it's enough in this case. The other sources also add to WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable lawyer; the books are barely worth a mention: The Morello Letters', is in only 35 libraries; the follow-up vol, in only 2. If that's the total holdings despite the reviews, the book are not enough for notability for anyone. However, the legal work is, and it is well sourced. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tam O'Shanter Ridge, Nova Scotia

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

Article is about a subdivision in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. It has an odd history. Shortly after creation, the name of the place was modified to be "Millers Mountain" and stayed that way until I recently changed it back. I can find no place known by "Millers Mountain" or any variation of it in the Dartmouth area. As Tam O'Shanter Ridge, I cannot find significant coverage of this subdivision. This source indicates it was a subdivision built in 1960. I can find no evidence that this was previously a town or village that amalgamated into Dartmouth. If it were hitorically such a place, that would make it notable. Given it is a subdivision with no significant coverage, I don't see this as notable. Whpq (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lash

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

There made be something here worth saving, but unless better sources are found, this looks like pure promotion. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hits in Google Books beyond a 1993 advertisement in a magazine. There is quite a bit of news archive coverage of a robbery on his shop in 2000 in which he was shot and an employee was killed, but that is WP:SINGLEEVENT at best, certainly not enough in itself to make him notable. Several namechecks where he created jewels for celebrities but nothing really substantial about him himself. So has to be a reluctant delete. Mabalu (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 09:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaded (Band)

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

This is quite clearly a hoax, but seemingly not enough so to constitute obvious vandalism. None of the info -- including the bit about the lead singer's alleged suicide, which you'd think would get a lot of press for a band this allegedly popular -- is verifiable. Because it didn't obviously look like vandalism at first glance, I used A7 instead of G3, and this was declined because the article incorrectly states that they've sold ten million records. T C N7JM 07:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a hoax; no information found for the alleged 7.2 million-selling album "No Holds Barred", nor anything else about this band. Gong show 15:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete as hoax. GregJackP Boomer! 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete whether G3 or A7 - it doesn't matter. The unsourced claim of suicide also warrants a BLP PROD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Gask

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

No evidence of notability. Backing singer for a notable pop group does not warrant an individual article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks NN to me. I note that only other two members of Showaddywaddy have their own articles, and they appear to the current frontmen. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not want you to delete this page. It is the only article I created. Please do not delete it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.100.148 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. Dusty Nathan

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

Non-noteworthy BLP of a columnist/sportswriter. Prod was removed as "might be notable," but sources about the columnist are not forthcoming. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable sources that discuss Dusty Nathan in depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BritBangla

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

This doesn't meet GNG. Sources only give passing mention and some are non-RS. This has already been deleted twice now. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah I have to agree with the nom, my Google searches didn't turn up anything new not already in the article. The sources show the organization exists, but they don't say anything about the organization, they are not about the organization. It's also troubling that a 10 year old organization has this small a footprint, even granted it's a small community it represents, 10 years is a long time to do things to get into the press (for a notable org). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Remy

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

Wikipedia entry focuses on an individual who does not meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia given that it is an individual defendant in a local murder trial with no other notable attributes. Allowing an entry on this individual to exist would amount to allowing a Wikipedia page for every criminal defendant charged with a murder. TerenceAmbrosius (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — TerenceAmbrosius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - per nom. --Malerooster (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including the Boston Globe, Seattle Times [22], Bangor Daily News [23], RDS [24], ABC News [25], CBS News [26], USA Today [27], and LA Times [28] for three separate incidents over the course of eight years. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's subject, as the son of a notable baseball broadcaster and player, gets more media attention than might be given to another criminal defendant. Coverage of the steroids story along with the murder charge takes this out of single-event territory. Agree with Hirolovesswords on WP:GNG. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is not inherited. The articles are all written about the fact the son of a notable person was charged, not about the subject itself. Caffeyw (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The murder would have been reported, even if the accused did not have a well-known father. Same for the Red Sox firing two guys who told the media they used steroids; that's enough for a news story. ReverendWayne (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Agree with nom. on notability. All articles seem to be about the father and the fact his son is charged, not about the actual son itself. A mention on the father's page would make more sense. Caffeyw (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, user Hirolovesswords are right about his assessment.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the only reason why we have an article is because of his famous father. Not notable by himself. 98.242.139.162 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seriously, what the holy hell is wrong with some people around here, there is no legitimate argument that can be made for keeping this. This is textbook WP:BLP1E, the only reason it is seeing a slight uptick from a routine news story about a murder is due to the alleged perpetrator's famous father. Notability is not inherited, so take that, the BLP1E, the fact that this person fails the 2 criteria (renowned victim or unusual motivation/method of killing) for perpetrators found at WP:CRIME. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes BLP1E because multiple reliable sources cover the person in the context of more than a single event (2005 assault arrest, 2009 firing, and 2013 murder case) and given the high-profile murder charge he is not likely to remain a low-profile individual. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While he is involved in more than a single "event," a firing from a job as a security guard for drug use and a 2005 assault would similarly not have been considered "newsworthy" had it not been for Remy's famous father. Additionally, this is WP:BLP1E because the individual is likely to remain a low-profile individual as there is a high likelihood that there will be no coverage following a potential trial. Furthermore, the only individual arguing that the article be kept is Hirolovesswords, who authored the original article. In closing, the entry also violates WP:BLPCRIME in that the entire article focuses on an individual accused of a crime without a conviction. Were it not for a criminal accusation, there would be no substance to the article. It should be deleted, and at most be merged as a few lines within his father's Wikipedia entry.Mhoward184 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Mhoward184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What you characterize as "a firing from a job as a security guard for drug use" is more noteworthy because (a) the employer was a major-league baseball team, (b) the fired employees admitted to steroid use, (c) the fired employees had personal contact with team players. PEDs in baseball is a huge story, and this would have been covered even without the connection to Jerry Remy. Firing + murder charge overcomes WP:BLP1E. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails a mixture of and WP:BLP1E WP is not a catalogue for every crime. LGA _talk^edits 20:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. Not a BLP1E as multiple reliable sources cover the person in the context of more than a single event, as explained above. Cavarrone 12:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination) for precedent for these sorts of cases. A string of legal altercations does not make a person notable, when said notability is only derived from a famous relative. Absent the relationship to Jerry Remy, this person would not be covered to the extent that he has. Al Gore III is just a redirect for precisely this reason, so at most here, an argument can be made for a small sub-section of Jerry's bio to discuss the son, with a redirect of 'Jared Remy' to that sub-section.
That's not how it works "what"? If you are referring to WP:BLP1E this is how it works. About the rest, I have no prejudice against a merging with his father's article, but this could be discussed in the proper venue once the AfD will be closed. Cavarrone 06:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Closing admin, please read through the Al Gore III deletion history linked above, as it should serve as a guide for this case, IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A subject which required 8 nominations to be deleted and whose major claim of notability was "He is known for being mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father during the 1992 Democratic National Convention" could be hardly serve as a guide for this case. Every case is different, and this is quite different, IMHO. Cavarrone 06:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comments of Hiro and the fact that this does not fall under BLP1E due to the fact that there is coverage on multiple events pertaining to this individual (assault (another), steroid use (another), murder). Technical 13 (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dak-Kon

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

Apologies Dak-Konnies, just another fan-con. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Shirt58 (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Facebook and personal web pages do not constitute reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Google searches turn up nothing. Maybe there's a list this could be merged into? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Wetterauer

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

Little or no rationale for notability. Dearth of acceptable sources. Article's creator used this as a launching platform for inserting images by the artist into multiple articles. JNW (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot understand JNW's claim about "little or no rationale for notability", because WP:ARTIST/WP:AUTHOR is clearly met: Herbert Wetterauer has published several books and his artwork was featured in a number of exhibitions.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see that any of the criteria for WP:ARTIST/WP:AUTHOR are met. There's no indication that The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or that The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Perhaps on the last criteria, Art-Collection Westermann, City-Gallery of Rastatt or One-Man-Show at the State Art Museum Baden-Baden offer some possibility, but neither is sourced, and there's little indication that either venue is significant--is either represented by a separate article on Wikipedia? The other galleries appear to be commercial or otherwise have no claim to notability. Similarly, merely publishing books establishes nothing, other than having published books. JNW (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - publishing books and exhibiting art does not prove an artist is widely known/important, contrary to what FoxyOrange suggests. However, the German Wikipedia article seems to have a vague list of magazine/newspaper coverage going back 30 years. If full details could be established about some of this coverage, Wetterauer would probably meet WP:GNG (and WP:ARTIST). Sionk (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that the English and German Wikipedia Articles both have almost no valid sources, most sources are other Wikis. The German article quotes the English one as a source for his notability. --Gutental (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough valid sources among "External links" and "Publications", not only other Wikis. --Hirt des Seyns (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links are weak, mostly controlled by the artist himself, plus the German Wikipedia article that doesn't belong there since it can already be found on the left side. His publications don't impress me either. His latest book doesn't even have a publisher. What we need is publications ABOUT Wetterauer. --Gutental (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the German Wikipedia, you will find a list of print-articles ABOUT Wetterauer (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Wetterauer#Rezeption), even you will find a photography of one of this articels here: http://wetterauer-stromness.bildkunstnet.de/ --->"Pressestimmen".
Online-articel about: http://www.boulevard-baden.de/lokales/nachrichten/2011/03/15/lesung-mit-herbert-wetterauer-335740/ or http://www.raumk.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1005&Itemid=54 or http://www.ka-news.de/entertainment/gewinnspiel/Gewinnspiel-Buch-Literatur-Flucht-vor-der-Vergangenheit-Fuenfmal-Stromness-von-Herbert-Wetterauer;art155,428698 .Hirt des Seyns (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the local online press, reporting about a local artist who published his first novel. As usual, they were given a few books to raffle off. Not impressive either, and it doesn't justify placing his artwork in articles of general interest like Pinselzeichnung or Zeichnung (Kunst), alongside the works of Leonardo da Vinci and Gustav Klimt. The large number of merely local media that is listed under "Rezeption" in the German article doesn't make points. I wouldn't say that "Boulevard Baden" creates relevance. --Gutental (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wetterauer's third novel ("death.com") has appeared just now in a print-issue here: http://www.infoverlag.de/Neuerscheinungen.php

Hirt des Seyns (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'll nail my colours to the mast. There's no compelling evidence that Wetterauer meets WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. There are plenty of artist articles on Wikipedia that are basically unsourced CV's, we don't need another one. The list of coverage on the German Wikipedia article gives no clue as to what it is - quite probably it will be announcements and/or brief mentions in the context of group exhibitions. Until someone explains otherwise, we simply don't know. WP:NAUTHOR might be met, but there's no proof of this at the moment. For example I found this review of his first novel but I can't find anything else substantial that isn't a book sales site. The English Wikipedia article would need to be completely re-written if he turns out to be a notable author. Sionk (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there seem to be enough reliable sources (albeit not in English) to support the notability of this individual. Technical 13 (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is ample sourcing to show that the subject is an active artist and author, the information we have does not show independent evidence of notability. Really, apart from the local stories, and promotional materials, there's not much there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cotabato City bombing

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

The article is only a few sentences and past its creation time with no expansion. This is WP:NOTNEWS and the content can either go on List of terrorist incidents, January-June, 2013 or on some page of the insurgency in the Philippines.

Related concurrent nominations:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 2013 Beirut bombing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Krong Pinang bombing

Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to demonstrate or make any claim that it will have any lasting significance, it therefore fails the inclusion policy. It received news coverage because it was a news story. LGA _talk^edits 20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. NOTNEWS exists because local papers will write about boring and unimportant local events just because they need to fill their pages with something. This story was covered by essentially every major news outlet in the entire world. Xrt6L (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Major events, tons of coverage in reliable sources. Xrt6L (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Im with xrt6l on this one. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, while the best option would be merging it into an article about the insurgency in the Philippines. Mass murders and terrorist acts aren't that sort of trivial/local news events which fall under NOTNEWS. Cavarrone 06:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have an enormous page about this car bomb in the US that didn't even go off. Though I agree with the sentiment that if more becomes known (in a definitive way) about the context for this bomb, it may be reasonable to incorporate this into a larger article. groupuscule (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more than just a routine event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Kaur Bajwa

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

person only claimed to be 115 years old never verified. Redsky89 (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the effort I put into creating this article and someone is trying to delete it! Why do I even bother contributing to Wikipedia?! Francium12 (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to defend the article is to post additional sources like the ones already there, newspaper and magazines, the more better. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could do that and it could still be deleted. I'd feel a bit of an idiot then! Francium12 (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG multiple reliable sources. We don't care about the truth of the 115-year claim, we only care if the topic is notable, which by GNG means it has been covered in multiple reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is yet another abuse of, and demonstration of the failings in, multiple wiki guidelines. This person made the news for one event which only achieved "supposed" significant coverage because most media outlets will repeat any rubbish without the slightest attempt at checking whether a claim is true or not, despite being cited as reliable sources (thus not even satisfying the "verifiability not truth" maxim). Any notability this person supposedly has will be temporary at best. Why? Because it is not only extremely unlikely to be true, but even less likely to be proven true. There are hundred, if not thousands, of unproven claims to this sort of age, the sheer number of which is a clear indication that only the most exceptional should be considered notable enough to justify an article. This case isn't one of them. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many Category:Longevity claims have Wikipedia pages. The category is called "claims". It is not our responsibility to verify longevity claims for absolute truth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, one could argue that Sant Kaur Bajwa has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and that she would therefore pass WP:BIO. But taking a closer look at this guideline, one finds that not only the mere existence of media coverage is demanded, but also encyclopedic suitability of the subject in question. And I dare say that this is not met here: Just claiming to be very old, without a definite proof, is not sufficient (also because of WP:V). Please note that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This means that being featured in some kind of a news source does not automatically call for a Wikipedia article. All coverage is about her death, so that one could further argue that she is only notable for one event (dunno if "death" is applicable here, though). In any case WP:EVENT also comes to mind: There has not been any ongoing news coverage; what we are talking about here is a relatively short news spike. To sum it up, even though there are reasonable sources, she should not be included into Wikipedia because there is just no "raison d'être".--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles on Wikipedia Category:Longevity claims. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note most sources were written after their death it doesn't seem to be enough to be a stand alone article. this article could be redirected to Longevity claims or Incomplete longevity claims if it seems to fit. just a suggestion. Redsky89 (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can have standalone articles for incomplete longevity claimants so long as there are multiple reliable sources that cover the topic in depth. We do not bias against people born in countries that did not issue birth certificates. Just because she has a Wikipedia article doesn't make her claim complete. But not giving her a Wikipedia article because her claim is incomplete is biased. The way to handle it is to rely on GNG which says multiple reliable sources that cover the topic in depth. When those sources appeared is irrelevant, subjects can become notable after death. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Reasons noted above. PrairieKid (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If this were true, it might possibly make her notable. The problem is likely to be that there is no way of verifying her date of birth, as there was (I believe) no registration of birth in India at the time. It might conceivably be possible to verify it from the dates of birth and parental ages of successive gnerations of her descendants. My guess is that all the sources cited depend on a single press release, probably by a member of the family. A redirect to Longevity claims or Incomplete longevity claims might be more appropriate, as there is nothing notable about her apart from her alleged age. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the targets, most of the claims do NOT have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: To be on the safe side, let us discuss one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverified claims. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 12:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The subject clearly does pass WP:BASIC. However, the statement of WP:BASIC states that "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria ... such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." More precisely, the subject in this case does not pass WP:NOTNEWS, as there is no evidence of there being coverage beyond the context of a single event, being her death. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 15:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, not AFD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Wiki Loves Monuments/Uttar Pradesh/Agra

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

Already have article in mainspace naveenpf (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, not AFD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Wiki Loves Monuments/Tamil Nadu

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

already have page in mainspace naveenpf (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Containment Methodology

AfDs for this article:

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

This appears to be a new product that doesn't have the notability required to remain here. Most search results are from the company itself, their press releases, or advertising for the system. Dismas|^(talk) 05:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may have been some misunderstanding as to what CCM is... It is not a 'product' but a system or set of methodologies that can be applied to reduce liability using existing workplace products, procedures and programs. It is not new and has been used since 2008 as outlined in the case reviews in the Miracles Report - Australian and Local Government and Corporate and Private service have benefited from the methodology. The CCM system is no different to that of a system such as SixSimga, but unlike Sigma, it is not a system to buy but a methodology that forms part of recommendations for an initiative for reducing Employer risk and psychological Injury. Issadora1 (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. It's unlikely that a "methodology", or "set of methodologies", or "system", whichever it is, ever could be notable. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are many systems and methods that wikipedia articles are available for and once again I use Six sigma as an example, I do not necessarily agree that six sigma is notable but that is subject to the interpretation of the user. I don't understand the difference, could you please explain so I do not write further contributions that may not be suitable. Issadora1 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scores a massive 287 (two hundred eighty seven) Google hits. Notable? Don't think so. The Banner talk 22:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun Almhanna

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

A promotional article on a physician who meets neither the GNG nor WP:PROF. Possibly even speedy delete, since the biographical part of the article is in large part a very close paraphrase of his bio at Moffit Cancer Center here, and this is an entirely promotional article that would need extensive rewriting beyond normal editing, even if he were notable. But he doesn't meet the GNG--there are no references providing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. He doesn't meet WP:PROF: the publication record shows only 10 papers with citation counts of 10 or more, which is trivial in a heavily cited field like oncology. He is not a full professor, or even an associate professor. He has not been on the editorial board of any journal, and just reviewing papers for a journal is trivial. He is an officer in no national professional association, he is an elected fellow of no professional society,just an ordinary member. His awards are trivial awards within his own state, not the national level awards that show notability

And the author of this article appears to be an entirely promotional editor writing articles about physicians at the Moffit Cancer Center, see WP:Articles for Deletion/ - . DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom's clear reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the several reasons given in the nomination,~~especially the apparent COI of this editor.~~ Lesion (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- struck comment because ... it's too complicated to explain. Lesion (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 09:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kwartet

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

references give no indication band is at all notable. (the refs are a really poor collection of press releases and info on an almost completely unrelated artist) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this group to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 15:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Can't find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (banter) @ 22:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of European road signs

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

I don't think it's of any use to anyone. It's a showroom, not an article.If we keep this article, we might create an article named "Ikea [name of place]" and have people take pictures of the furnitue there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Puntaalpo (talk • contribs) 05:21, 7 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Nominator does not provide a policy-based reason for deletion. WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL. No prejudice against renomination with an actual rationale. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that a good case can be made for saying that the present structure of the article is useful to those who wanted to compare road signs. As Bushranger says, that is not a valid rationale for deletion and AfD is not for improving articles. Roadsign articles in WP are problematic and often inadequately sourced because the technical background to the rationale for countries adopting their own variant is frequently not readily accessible and requires good language knowledge. But the article can develop - it is very likely that there has been a technical study published on this topic. --AJHingston (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - In addition to The Bushranger's policy-based arguments, I can tell you this article WAS useful: It shows the legitimacy of an image in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone article bearing a stop sign in English. Even though one might think that would be inappropriate in Ukraine (not even the right alphabet, just for starters), this article shows that except for fonts, stop signs in Ukraine (and most of Europe) look just like they do in the U.S. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per Bushranger and RBBrittain. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Fry1989 ^eh? 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --Dch (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to HIV/AIDS_in_the_pornographic_film_industry#In_2013. There is consensus that she is not notable per BLP1E. There is no consensus whether the article should be redirected or merged and redirected. By default, I replace it by a redirect, whoever wants to use the info is welcome to merge it using the page history.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Bay (pornographic actress)

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

This article is about a pornographic actress who I believe fails WP:PORNBIO and is really known only for getting infected with HIV. While the repercussions of the HIV outbreak probably merit a mention in HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry, I believe that this article runs afoul of BLP guidelines. The Call of Cthulhu (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry#In 2013 per BLP1E principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry#In 2013.Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument. Finnegas (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HIV/AIDS_in_the_pornographic_film_industry#In_2013. Guy1890 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i had not been able to find an article which this content might go in. the target article proposed is logical, and i had not found it prior to creating my article. im neutral on the merge/redirect, but can easily see the logic in it, with BLP1E, while not an ironclad rule on its face, obviously to be considered.(mercurywoodrose)99.14.218.225 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-personal content to HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry#In 2013. then delete original article without redirect. This is, as argued above, really about the HIV outbreak, not the person. We should not leave a redirect in this case, on WP:BLP1E principles: there is no reason to name patients in this sort of article, unless there is particular notability and relevance, which there is not in this case. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only issue that I have with the above arguments is that it is this person here that caused the outbreak in question, and that fact has already been covered by numerous mainstream media sources, like the Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News, ABC News, etc. I see no reason to leave out the relevant info (from the article under consideration here) from the proposed merge target article, which I see that you've already pre-emptively edited. Guy1890 (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: If you want to use the name in that article, it's up to you, but the words "caused the outbreak" are not at all helpful. This sort of thing is exactly why BLP1E exists. -- The Anome (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cameron was also featured in the first season of Tool Academy so this is not a BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't believe that appearing as a participant on a reality TV show is sufficient to contribute to meeting the notability criteria: she was in the show, the show was not principally about her, which is what is required by WP:N. -- The Anome (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Owens hoax

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

Not a notable hoax. Got a brief spate of coverage, but no words on it after the fact. Absolutely no updates since 2008, outside one passing mention in 2012. Previous two AFDs from 2008-09 closed as "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the previous AfDs were:

Closed no consensus 2 January 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Owens

Closed no consensus 13 January 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Owens (hoax)

OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge Does not seem to have lasting notability. However, in conjunction with Reddit serial killer hoax there may be enough for an article Lying about the past. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lying about the past could possibly be a more fleshed out article than any of the individual hoaxes. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was cited by PC World magazine in January 2011 as one of the top 10 wikipedia hoaxes ever.[29]. See also this 2013 book published by the professor involved, published by U of Mich press.[30]. I do think an alternate option would be to merge into something that doesn't seem to exist yet, a fork from Reliability of Wikipedia on the most notable wikipedia hoaxes (there is Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, but that is not in mainspace and includes many non-notable hoaxes.)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is giving aid and comfort to T. Mills Kelly, someone who has purposely sought to undermine Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies on truthfulness and accuracy. We should not have articles that give honor to those who deliberately try to undermine it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about those who unintentionally undermine it? Should that really effect notability? Should the Great Moon Hoax be excluded because it was an obvious fraud on the populace?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Kelly thinks or finds comforting has zero to do with notability, which is the argument TPH made in nominating this article. Steven Walling • talk 05:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references in the article show that it was a notable hoax. To Johnpacklambert's point, I do not see that the article gives either "honor" or "aid and comfort" to the professor whose students promulgated the hoax. I think that it is essential for Wikipedia to frankly discuss its past failings, so as to better detect and avoid future hoaxes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not all notable events of the past continue to generate constant coverage, and that doesn't make them any less notable. That's why we call it history. This event clearly passes the basic tests of WP:V and general notability, as demonstrated by the sources involved. Steven Walling • talk 05:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep There has been discussion and coverage of this, as a specifically targeted hoax. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the following coverage since 2008 in addition to what was already mentioned: [31] [32] [33].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Milowent and User:The Devil's Advocate have demonstrated continued coverage meeting IRS criteria appearing in 2011 and 2012. While an event of limited scope, subject meets WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE. Puts the subject past the event bar for me. BusterD (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the GNG criteria. Has appropriate coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Youboty

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

American Football player who has yet to make his pro debut in the NFL or other league. He is currently on a practice squad but this does not confer notability, nor guarantee he will play in the NFL at some time in the future. Ravendrop 04:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was cut from the Broncos in August. Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. Click on the "news" link above and find the hundreds of articles about his college career. Please complete steps outlined in WP:BEFORE prior to nomination.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most athletes at big universities are going to see their names in print--that's routine sports 204.126.132.231]] (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a major difference between "seeing their name in print" and "routine coverage" -- and that's the reason that WP:GNG exists.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of college athletics is why WP:NCOLLATH exists. The article's only sources are his profile at Temple (clearly routine) and the fact that he was signed as a free agent (like hundreds of others each year) and cut before playing a regular season game (more routine coverage).204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple. Coverage of college athletics is one reason that the guideline WP:NCOLLATH exists. It states, "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways" -- and I believe that is established through the general notability guideline. I also disagree that all of the coverage of the subject is routine as it goes beyond merely repeating of statistics. Just because a college athlete doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH does not mean the subject is not notable. Notability can be achieved through other paths and I believe that is accomplished here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's why to early to tell right now. I think he could eventually play a game in the NFL. Pmaster12 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That he might play in the NFL someday is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youboty is not yet notable. If he does play in the NFL later, we can recreate the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject clearly fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. The article's only 2 references are to Temple's athletic website (obviously not independent) and a 2 line mention, along with 15 others, at the Bronco's website about all the free agents the Broncos added after the NFL draft (neither significant nor independent). Neither source shows the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Detroit City FC season

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

FAils WP:GNG. Article a season page of an American team soccer team playing in the fourth-tier (appears to be an amateur league according to this link), comprising only of a series of scores and stats. Season pages for this level are overkill. Ravendrop 04:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS no indication that there is any wider coverage to support GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, fails GNG and NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jefferson Boulevard#Little New Orleans. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little new orleans

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

No sources to back content up, perhaps a notability issue Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 03:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source cited = The Free People of Color of New Orleans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akh2103 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a "source" in the Wikipedia sense - see WP:REF. It might accurately describe where you found the information but we would need more that a single mention in a single book to satisfy our inclusion guidelines. Stalwart111 06:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jefferson Boulevard (as suggested below) ~~Delete~~ - I couldn't find significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources nor anything that recognised the location as a notable place. Stalwart111 06:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jefferson_Boulevard#Little_New_Orleans. I could find evidence to where this existed, but the problem here is that the coverage is all fairly minor in scope. It's all brief 1-2 sentence mentions here and there. There is not really anything out there to show that this merits an entry along the lines of Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, for example. It's a shame that there isn't any true in-depth coverage because this sounds like it would be fascinating, but we aren't here to make up the difference. For now I'd say that there's merit in merging some of the information into the main article for Jefferson and just redirecting there. On a side note, I removed the mention of The Free People of Color of New Orleans because I need the page number and the other information to have a proper cite. With that info missing and the same information found on other sources, I just went ahead and removed it. It can be re-added with the full information (page number, ISBN, etc), but the big issue is that the mention is just as brief as the ones I found. If anyone wants to write about this and get it published through some of the scholarly channels, then we can start looking at creating a full article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found another mention in an article about the Creole people in LA, but it was again just a brief mention in general. This has to be one of the more frustrating AfDs I've tried to find sources for, as I really wish we could write more about this but the sourcing and basic material just isn't out there. On a side note, I've added the material to Jefferson_Boulevard#Little_New_Orleans. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's certainly interesting, it just doesn't seem to be notable. But your merger suggestion seems sensible - have changed my own note. Stalwart111 09:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jefferson Boulevard#Little New Orleans. Per source availability, doesn't appear to qualify for a standalone article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted due to no claim of importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick fontanilla jacob

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

Non notable author, content not encyclopedic, possible COI Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 02:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also was claimed by a copyright infringement, but I suspect subject wrote the original text so that reason does not hold water. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per CSD:A7. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebubblepop

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

No sources cited, no notability, and not really detailed enough to create a substantial article. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 02:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7; No stated indication of importance for this web content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Agoraphobic Nosebleed. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agoraphobic Nosebleed / Kill the Client

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

non-notable split EP Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band's article. There doesn't seem to be enough here to justify an article on just the EP. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band per UltraExactZZ, not enough coverage to merit a stand-alone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bangalore. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions in Bangalore

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

It doesn't help to have a list of diplomatic missions in Bangalore if none of them are linked. Also I don't think it's of any use to anyone other than to diplomats (and I think they already have a paper book with the information.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puntaalpo (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 04:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge to Bangalore. The existence of Consulate Generals is notable, but can easily be mentioned in the main city article as it really only needs a single sentence. The existence of honorary consulates, trade commissions and virtual trade commissions aren't really that notable as often times an honorary consulate is just someone operating out of their own home. So in summary mention the Consulate Generals of France, Germany (linked) and Britain; possibly the consulates of Japan and Israel; no need to mention the rest. Ravendrop 03:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RDM Corporation

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

No evidence of notability (and searching just finds press releases). Presently painfully-obviously constructed by COI editor. Could be stubified, I suppose. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main section of the article was a WP:COPYVIO from this. I have removed it, so it now has a much simpler lead section (and doesn't use words like "we" and "our"). AllyD (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Among the most ridiculous things on the internet is PR Newswire attempting to charge me $4.95 for a copy of a ten year old press release about this outfit. Note: I did not pay. This is the sort of worthless garbage coughed up when attempting to find coverage in reliable sources of this check digitizing company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's a fairly old company and that makes the article somewhat notable. But doesn't have any sources. The first one is invalid, the second points to financial ranking site. Very weak keep. scope_creep talk 18:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Extremely old businesses may be notable at least in part when reliable sources discuss the great age of the company in the context of significant coverage. This company has been around since 1987, which is not that old, really. There are many non-notable companies who have been in business much longer. There are also much newer companies that are notable. The deciding factor is significant coverage in reliable sources. Where is it for this company? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking broad WP:SIGCOV. The two references consist of a dead link and a list draw up by a business consultancy. It should not have been hard to find references for a company having notability.Blue Riband► 03:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godrej Properties Limited

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

Does not meet WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Godrej_Group. This article appears to be written like an advertisement. The company is quite notable. If someone can find more reliable sources then it should be kept. SmackoVector (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep As the article currently stands, it doesn't read like an advertisement, although it could do with rewriting and expansion. That being said, it's a highly notable company by any standards, and the nom would have discovered that had s/he spent ten seconds with Google. Mandalini (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments : Could you please explain why it is highly notable company by any standards. Please go through with the wiki policy as I mentioned that WP:COMPANY. There no depth coverage till now. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, ten seconds with Google brings up extended coverage in multiple major secondary sources. Here we have the Hindu; the Economic Times; CNBC; the Hindustan Times; the Economic Standard. Here's Business Today. According to Reuters, as of March 31, 2012, the company was developing 77 million square feet of real estate through projects in 12 cities across India. Bloomberg calls it the fourth-biggest developer in India. What, pray tell, makes you think it's *not* notable? Mandalini (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thick you have to go through to WP:ORGDEPTH. All links said company's investment and product not about "Significant coverage" the company.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 17:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. This and this are dedicated analyses of a recent capital raise on the part of the company, including quoted remarks by the company's managing director, about a new attempt to raise money, and this is a report on a regulator's activity with regard to the attempted raise. Both are dedicated articles about the company, as opposed to cursory mentions of something or other, like this. Here's another dedicated article about the company's activities. Mandalini (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jayanta Nath. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 09:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 09:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage in reliable sources identified here by Mandalini. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no questioned about reliable sources, All sources are reliable. I am concern about Significant coverage the company.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 06:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confident that the full range of sources brought forth in this debate amount to significant coverage. This is not a small or medium sized company, and saying so shows a lack of familiarity with small business, which is my career. It is the fourth largest company of its type in India, with projects in 12 cities. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the fourth largest company of its type in India any reference?? And by the way "fourth largest company" is not the criteria of inclusion.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 07:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will find in the text above, provided by Mandalini, a link to a Bloomberg News article verifying this fact. If it was the fourth largest manufacturer in India of brass plates decorated with imitation gemstones, that would not be a credible claim to notability. But fourth largest real estate developer is a credible claim of notability with regards to a country with well over a billion people, and the extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources uncovered by Mandalini seals the deal, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert article. It's a fairly small to medium sized construction company, house builder. I don't see any notability. Supposed references are very poor. Fails WP:COMPANY certianly. scope_creep talk 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As the sources given my Mandalini plus its on top for "Best companies to work for 2013" under Real Estate by Economic Times. Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 17:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Fangzhou

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

I see no WTA main draw entries, nor any victories in a $35,000+ tournament required for notability. Not notable for tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I She has competed in WTA main draw — 2013 Suzhou Ladies Open. This means that she meets the guidelines. pbr123

That is a WTA 125 tournament... the equivalent of the men's challenger tour. Sorry but per guidelines she needs to WIN one of those minor tournies, not just be in one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not competed in the main draw of a WTA tournament and doesn't WP:NTENNIS. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haynes Aero Skyblazer

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Skyblazer Flying Car

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

Project which never got off the ground. Sourcing is paltry and includes what are basically non-entries, previous close was erroneous--article has not been salvaged. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary, and something need not exist in order to be notable. There are multiple reliable sources listed in the article, and a quick Google check shows several more that can be added. The article totally needs a good scrub-and-polish, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a short summary to Roadable aircraft, of which it is a species. -- While I agree that notability is not temporary, this has the look of a WP:CRYSTAL project that never got anywhere, perhaps becuase the whole thing was impracticable. I note that there are no references more recent that 2006 and 2007. If anything had been achieved, I would have expected there to be something more. I guess that someone provided some funding for a feasibility study. When the funding ran out, that was the end of the matter. My personal test on WP:CRYSTAL infrastucture projects is that a subject should not have more than an article on the project generally until it is legally authorised and funded, or at least has a very goood prospect of that. As a (probably) failed project, I would suggest that a brief summary be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Fay

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

Non notable per WP:BIO. Article appears to just be promo. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject fails WP:GNG. Most content was added by Cwo2mdfay (talk · contribs) which appears, at least to me, as if CWO2 (Chief Warrant Officer 2) Michael Fay essentially wrote most of his own wikipedia article which is strongly discouraged (WP:COISELF/WP:AUTOBIO). The content that Cwo2mdfay did write lacks verifiability from reliable sources. — -dainomite 22:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and likely has a major COI as well. Intothat darkness 21:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana National Science And Maths Quiz Winners

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

Unsourced list, Original Research as well Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There might be some merit to having an article on the actual contest since it's held at the national level, but I'm having trouble finding RS, but that might be due to a language barrier? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is an national level prize, and though your can't find entries on Google about it, doesn't make it WP:OR. It is likely to do with language differences. Since the Ghanaian generally take great pride in their education, unlike the west nations, it is likely to be a fairly prestigious prize. I would say let it sit until references come up. Certainly the Ghanaian Google has a number of entries about it, which could perhaps server as sources. scope_creep talk 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My big concern is that there's a big difference between having an article for a contest and having an article that's just a list of names of people who have won the contest. If it gets kept, it needs to be as an article about the contest itself, not a roster of people who have won. It's not really the norm to have an article about winners of a contest unless the contest has been so long running and so overwhelmingly prestigious that each yearly contest gains a lot of coverage. By this I mean that you'd get something along the lines of the Nobel Prize, the Golden Rooster Awards, and similar. Even if a contest is notable, there's not much merit in just having an article about the contest. Other than that, I would really like to see some sort of sourcing for this as well. We need to have at least a few sources that talk about this to really show notability. They don't have to necessarily be plastered all over Google News, but we need some sort of verification that this is as notable and prestigious in the country as you claim. We don't need a huge amount in this case, just some coverage. It doesn't have to be in English, mind you, but we do need something. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles-Redskins rivalry

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

I'm not doubting that a rivalry exists between the two teams but this article is poorly written, not sourced and it does not assert that a rivalry exists. Clecol99 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 31. Snotbot t • c » 09:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - no policy-based reason for deletion presented. A poorly written, unsourced article is not a reason for deletion. I've also cleaned up the messy nomination statement. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I will assume in good faith that the nominator meant to assert a lack of notability, but notability is obvious: a longtime rivalry between two NFL teams that play in the same division, there's plenty potential material to develop this article; one might start with "Eagles-Redskins is a rivalry for the ages" (video) and the various book sources that come up on a GBooks search for <Eagles Redskins rivalry>. ~~Please note that the notice for this AfD on the article page still needs technical attention.~~ I think I fixed it. Dashes vs. hyphens! --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the book sources? Can you link them to me as the first few pages on Google books doesn't indicate anything about a rivalry between the two teams, some of which, including the vital Redskins Encyclopedia I do own. Secret ^account 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Xrt6L (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why, WP:NOTAVOTE AFD is not a vote? Secret ^account 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOR. Every time two teams play each other, any claims of "rivalry" comes up, especially in the local news media. That doesn't indicate that there is really a "rivalry" between the two teams. These kind of articles usually need much stronger sources to sustain having a Wikipedia article. Outside localized sources, sources that came up during the Redskins acquisition of Donovan McNabb, or trivial mentions I don't see the case here, probably because both teams peaks never overlapped with each other, and they aren't in the same division. Secret ^account 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eagles and Redskins do play in the same division. The rivalry doesn't have to be at the level of the Redskins and Cowboys to be a notable rivalry with substantial coverage. In addition to the "rivalry for the ages" report I noted above, Michael Richman, author of the aforementioned Redskins Encyclopedia, describes Redskins-Eagles as "a combustible rivalry . . . one of the oldest and most compelling duels in NFL history." [34] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprised this hadn't been created earlier. I am also assuming good faith and having said that, there is a lot of history between these two teams. Over 150 meetings and they have been playing since 1934, there are a lot of great games between these two teams. There is definetly plenty of material in the archives to expand this article. Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep personally I don't like rivalry articles. But WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Other than that, I see plentiful coverage to pass WP:GNG. Poorly written? WP:SOFIXIT.--Paul McDonald (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderlist

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

CSD was declined. Non notable organisation. Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Startup only recently created. Fails WP:ORG. Not much else to say. scope_creep talk 15:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to Wunderlist (software) CNet Review, Lifehacker article, Engadget article, macworld article, tabtimes review, theledger article... That's enough to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC) An an afterthought, moving to Wunderlist (software) might clear up some of the confusion. The software is notable, the company probably isn't, and the article name doesn't distinguish the two.Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly move per Lesser Cartographies, those sources provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as several reliable independent sources have been found on the software. Zach Vega (talk to me) 17:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Condorcet-IRV

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

Delete. Original research. Re-post of deleted material. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condorcet Instant Runoff Voting and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condorcet-Hare Method. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condorcet Approval Instant Runoff Voting and Talk:Condorcet method/Archive 1#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condorcet Instant Runoff Voting. Markus Schulze 11:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus established in previous AfDs. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CDVU+

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

Not notable, written like an advertisement, and misleading (it is not a “technology”; it is simply a series of regular enhanced CDs) ï¿½ (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 31. Snotbot t • c » 12:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable per Geek.com, Reuters, Engadget, IT Media (Japanese), and Gizmodo. I've removed most of the promotional material. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, it is not a “technology”. From the Gizmodo article you linked: You know what I hate? When marketing innovations are disguised as new technologies. ï¿½ (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I've edited the article to remove the bit about being a technology. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Freda

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

Non-notable town officer. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In Connecticut towns, the "first selectman" is the equivalent of mayor. North Haven is a suburban town with slightly over 24,000 population in the 2010 census. Is that significant enough to give him media visibility (i.e., independent sources)? A glance at Google shows at least some news interviews and such. Kestenbaum (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is coverage in a range of local sources, including the North Haven Patch, Connecticut Post-Chronicle, and the Connecticut Citizens Publishing Group (can't get the links to work for that last one). The lack of broader coverage is a bit disturbing, though. Do the notability policies say any about local vs. national coverage? Barring some policy I don't know about, this article seems to meet criterion #2 of WP:POLITICIAN, as a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Once the strings have been cut from the marionettes, all that remains are well-founded arguments in favor of deletion as non-notable advertising with no encyclopedic coverage. bd2412 T 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's Watches

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

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

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

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

Can't find sources to see it meets WP:ORG Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's a advertising article, which diminishes WP purpose. Fails WP:GNG scope_creep talk 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure spam; almost a candidate for G11 speedy. Absolutely nothing found at Google News Archive. I deleted a couple of spammy external links. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the page can be improved and revised w/ WP:NPOV content. I found a few references for this page that appear to be valid 3rd party sources:

1

2

Ktwestside (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your last url says at the bottom "Sponsored by Bob’s Watches" - not a valid source. The Orange County Register is IMHO too local to be used. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with the comment below; The Orange County Register is an absolutely legitimate regional Newspaper. It was founded in 1905 & and has won several Pulitzer prizes; the author who took up the subject of Rolex Watches is a career journalist with well-established credentials: [35]

See The Orange County Register - Ktwestside (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please review your sources more thoroughly. The OC Register isn't a local paper. It's the 19th largest paper in the country by circulation. They've won a Pulitzer Prize as well. Their mention is definitely notable for their size. Their circulation is 280,000. That's far beyond a "local" paper. I live in a small town with a local paper. The circulation is 10,000. Those numbers make it a local paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathron (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:POTENTIAL WP:NOTIMELIMIT Rolex is a subject that will always garner interest and have an audience; coupled with the unique platform of this company, I think there's solid reason to keep and/or save this page. Also, a search for valid sources produced this reference [36] Rodesywiki (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC) — Rodesywiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment That's a sales site so irrelevant to notability. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also agree with keeping this page. Strong points were made above that Rolex is indeed a subject most people will be interested in, and the page can definitely be improved to a point that no one will even consider deletion an option for it. I think deleting this page would be too hasty of a move, especially if it can be fixed up a little more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathron (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)— Cathron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I feel that if companies such as Microsoft can have wikipedia pages, then why not smaller companies such as Bob's Watches? MarieMayer (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC) — mariemayer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Because we have criteria for notability at WP:ORG, which starts by saying "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Everyone !voting here should read it. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because we expect organisation to fulfill the criteria at WP:ORG. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely a breach of WP:NOTPROMO and the sock/meat-spam above in addition to the WP:OSE arguments gives that game plan away. The suggestion that an enterprise like this gains notability from the Rolex watches they sell is a complete fallacy. That's like suggesting I'm notable because I had a Coke today. One piece of local news coverage isn't anywhere near enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Really a bit surprised this was re-listed given the total lack of policy value from "team keep". Stalwart111 05:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of the fastest ways into getting an article deleted is to sock on an AfD nomination; in addition, sources largely fail WP:V. Falls well short of WP:ORG. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A firm going about its business, but not encyclopaedic. The Orange County Register article is the nearest to a WP:RS but inclusion in a feature article is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and to balance out the puppetfarm up there. I'm also surprised that this was relisted. Ansh6 6 6 07:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Indeed, looking back, the relisting was a bit unnecessary. I've requested closure at WP:AN/RFC. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A.T.Mödell

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NMUSIC. Appears to be self-promotion. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the criteria, this page at least meet points 1 and 5 (others could be not verifiable since they are only online publications). Point 1 is met by publications named "Zillo" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zillo, with a scan of the page at https://sphotos-b-mxp.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/943259_564243260273687_1391907407_n.jpg) and "Sonic Seducer" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Seducer, with a scan of the article at https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/p480x480/397971_10151407283583321_447318756_n.jpg). Point 5 is met with the publication of one physical media work with Danse Macabre, which can be verified on multiple online shops (Amazon, for example: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Apocalyptophilia-T-Modell/dp/B00CF9P57M/ref=sr_1_18_bnp_1_aud?ie=UTF8&qid=1378076149&sr=8-18&keywords=a.t.m%C3%B6dell). Information about Danse Macabre can be read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danse_Macabre_Records. Liyakx (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found three online reviews for this band - an Apocalyptophilia review by Side Line, which seems at least marginally reliable, and reviews for both Apocalyptophilia and Noise Therapy on Brutal Resonance, which looks solidy reliable (has a legitimate editorial staff according to its about page). It's difficult to assess the reliability of the print sources linked by Liyakx - those two magazines seems like solid sources, but I can't tell if the articles constitute significant coverage or are just promotional. Can any German speakers read them and weigh in? Either way, I feel confident that this band meets the WP:NMUSIC. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Threads of Destiny

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

This is an unnotable fan film. References provided do not satisfy WP:GNG. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 5 criteria in the General notability guideline are not satisfied? And how would this newspaper article qualify? http://arkiv.mitti.se:4711/2009/14/haninge/MIHA20A20090331HAV1.pdf (If you don't know Swedish it can be translated by copying and pasting the text on Google Translate) DarkSapiens (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep per pushing up on WP:GNG and WP:NF. IE: [37] [38] [39] (and hopefully more though the assistance of Swedish Wikipedans). It's a fan film (well done one too) and we do not expect that such fan-cult-based works have the same level of coverage as do big-budget studio-financed highly-advertised blockbusters. We need consider though that cult status of the Star Wars series has resulted in a number of Star Wars fan film articles that serve the project and its readers. This appears to be one... and notable to Sweden with Swedish language sourcing should be notable enough for en.Wikipeia Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, doing similar source searches for other fan films with Wikipedia articles yield similar results (none in Google news in most cases, and I only tried the better known ones). Also, one must note that Threads of Destiny is still unreleased, and this has an impact on its current notability. If the page gets deleted and in a couple of months the number of sources talking about it increases tenfold (for example), will the work in Wikipedia have to be redone? DarkSapiens (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the available options is that this could be placed in the WP:INCUBATOR for a short time as more sources come forward. It could also be moved into a user workspace for a time. And if it is deleted, someone with the admin tools, can always undelete it when the topic receives more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable per the sources provided by Schmidt. (Better link to #2: [40]). Those sources are all pretty old, though, so hopefully once the film is released some more recent coverage will pop up. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 07:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Shy

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. All awards/noms are scene related. All GNews and GBooks hits are spurious or trivial. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail WP:PORNBIO. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and PORNBIO as the nominator states. My own search for non-trivial reliable source coverage yielded only a brief mention in an AVN article that looks very much like a press release. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Sports

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

A case of WP:NOTPROMOTION. MicroX (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Samsung has been a major sponsor of teams in a wide variety of sports for at least 35 years. This book devotes at least four pages to that program, especially the company's recent involvement in the Olympic Games. Here's another book that also devotes four pages to the topic.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The concept of Samsung's sponsorship of sport teams and athletic events is notable, but this article is barely about that. In fact, the article is somewhat confusing... the lede says that Samsung Sports is a multi-sport club, but doesn't state at all which parts of a multi-sport club this one has. The rest of the article just lists teams that Samsung sponsors. An article on Samsung's sports marketing strategy (using the sources found by Cullen) would be interesting (or expansion of the existing Samsung article using this material). But this article isn't about that - despite its title - and this article should be deleted. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources found by Cullen establish notability. If the article is poorly written, it should be rewritten, not deleted. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 07:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOTI Inc.

AfDs for this article:

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

I do not think that the references here show notability. It just escapes speedy A7, and although I deleted a previous version as G11, I think this needs a discussion. See the refs suggested at AfD1. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article by James Heary describes this firm as having over 10,000 software users "including a healthy dose of fortune 500 companies" [41] It is a blog posting, so I haven't added it into the article, though it may pass as a bylined piece by a recognised journalist. AllyD (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—They've got a very good PR person: mentions in CMSWire press release, Intermec, Cult of Mac, E-week, and Brighthand, but these are effectively press releases. Also an interview in Network World. To put this in perspective, ZDnet wrote an actual article listing their top-10 MDM solutions and SOTI didn't make the cut (although their PR person is earning their money in the article comments). In short, despite the pile of links there's very little out here that doesn't originate with the company. Given a handful of independent citations and I think this article gets over the line, but with what I have in front of me this doesn't (in my opinion) meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. IMO trade-magazine articles are not enough. See the exclusion of "media of limited interest and circulation" in WP:CORPDEPTH. Let's leave SOTI out of Wikipedia until we see significant coverage in major mainstream sources such as The New York Times and the print version of BusinessWeek. Salting would be wise since the article has been repeatedly recreated. If the creator wants to create it again, they should first reread WP:42, then they should present their sources to the AfD-closing administrator. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn - Should've done a bit more research before presuming & nominating. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AMK Group

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

non notable bus company, Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail those guidelines when there's a in-depth source about the company in the article? --Oakshade (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no in-depth source whatsoever - Ref 1 doesn't work, & at the time time of nomming Ref 2 didn't work neither ..., Anyway part from 2 I've found nothing for notability ...- →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So just because you can't see the reference linked from the article, you presumed it wasn't an acceptable one to pass WP:GNG?--Oakshade (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly this AfD is flawed as the nom based there assessment that this failed WP:GNG due to their presumption that one of the sources in the article wasn't satisfactory as it was a dead link. WP:AFD and WP:GNG state very clearly that if sources exist but are not available online or yet placed in the article, that is not a bases for AfD. The source that the nom said was a "dead link" is here. It even has a Bloomberg Businessweek profile. [42]--Oakshade (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capocelli

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

Spam cross-wiki. This page is identical to the version that was deleted from it.wiki one year ago (see it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Capocelli), because it didn't have any references and it was probably an original research based on a paid heraldic research center. BohemianRhapsody (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--79.27.4.162 (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Hi! I've created the page and now I'm going to tell the right fact: this information didn't come from a private heraldic study, but from a book that I've read in an ITALIAN NATIONAL ARCHIVE, in particulary that of Bari. So this is all correct! I think now that wikipedia is composed by a little strange group of people who enjoying disturb the other people and who doesn't take care of the informations.It's really incredible![reply]

Delete per WP:GNG multiple reliable sources. The one cited source exists[43] but it is very close to the topic, published by the Commune where the family is from. The text of the article has been translated by Google Translate and is nearly incomprehensible. The single source is not enough to establish notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newbury & District

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

non notable bus company, Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If kept the article should be Newbury & District Ltd, but the article is essentially a list of bus routes at Newbury. We ddi a major cull on those a couple of months back. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Davey2010T 01:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Sleep Technologists

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

None of the provided references are significant coverage, and if that's the best that can be done (I couldn't find much in my search either), then this organization is not notable. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I did find a couple of books on sleep and sleep technology that briefly mention the organization, but overall the reliable sourcing seems slim. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am at a complete loss why this organization and the American Board of Sleep Medicine are up for deletion, as both are very much involved in the practice of sleep studies and sleep medicine. Does every single article about these in a professional sleep or respiratory journal have to be referenced in the articles? Bill Pollard (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you then find significant coverage of the organization in reliable sources? Because right now, the sources are primary or only give the briefest of mentions. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked at Sleep Review magazine's article search engine , at http://www.sleepreviewmag.com/hidn-search/?searchword=american%20board%20of%20sleep%20medicine&catid[0]=558&catid[1]=113&catid[2]=343&catid[3]=116&catid[4]=119&catid[5]=562&catid[6]=563&catid[7]=174&limitstart=0 , and looked for 'American Board of Sleep Medicine.' This search came up with 385 articles. Granted only a fourth of them had information about the Board or the American Association of Sleep Technologists. Many of these articles covered significant sleep medicine and sleep study topics. I did not even bother to do a similar search in the Advance for Respiratory Care & Sleep Medicine magazine or the AARC Times, which is in the American Association for Respiratory Care website. It just can't be argued these two entities have no significant coverage. I also put this comment in the AfD discussion of the American Board of Sleep Medicine. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:42 for a definition of "significant". Multiple passing mentions != significant coverage. Significant coverage is on a source-by-source basis, just as reliability and independence are. Having 100 somewhat-kinda-reliable-ish-abit sources does not equal a reliable source. Nor does having 100 passing mentions equal significant coverage.

Keep Sleep Review magazine calls it "the premier membership association" for sleep professionals (sleep technologists).[44] Confirmed in another source[45] and very many other sources. Clearly notable organization with the sleep studies field. Keep per WP:NGO, #1 national scope and #2 coverage of activities in multiple reliable independent sources. The depth of coverage isn't just word count, it's significance, and this is said to be a significant professional organization per the sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please view my comments today in the AfD discussion about the American Board of Sleep Medicine. These discussions are related and my comments further clarify these discussions. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't follow what you're trying to say in relation to this AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Green Cardamom: He wishes to claim that hundreds of passing mentions add up to a few significant coverage instances, but that's simply not what is meant by significant coverage, which specifically states that passing mentions are not significant. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said such a silly thing about using dozens of passing references to be equivalent to using several significant references, as is stated above. Of the numerous references in Sleep Review probably only 20 have significant coverage of this topic. I performed an article search in RT magazine and Advance for Respiratory Care & Sleep Medicine and found a handful of articles in each with significant coverage. I found some in AARC Times, as well, but unfortunately one has to have membership in the American Association for Respiratory Care to access the articles; this tends to invalidate using sources there, as the public cannot access them. I suggest anyone evaluating the merits of this subject do article searches in the mazagines I noted and actually read a bit of articles that show more than passing mentions of this organization. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calichera}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banmédica}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Drummed}}<!--Relisted-->