Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kappa (band): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:23, 9 November 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 October	1 November >

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab College Kharian

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

Spammy article about a college that is part of a larger education network that supports mainstream education. Subject appears to lack independent notability per WP:NSCHOOL and contains direct copy and paste and extremely close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep individual secondary schools are counted as notable. Most schools are part of a network, so this is not a reason to delete. The spammy nature is a reason to clean it up though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for deletion because it is part of a network, but because it appears to lack coverage in independent reliable sources. If individual secondary and above schools are still simply afforded 'automatic notability' what is the point of WP:NSCHOOL? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has no point and certainly doesn't reflect consensus established through many AfDs. The situation is that one or two determined editors consistently remove text that reflects the actual consensus. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definately needs to be cleaned up, but unless someone has a larger publication to fill out the encyclopedic stats of the school it should be concise and functional. Some of these books are hard to get, but it really could use more figures and less on the generic "mission" statement. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article (Punjab Group of Colleges) until notability is apparent. The parent group is certainly notable but this branch was only established in 2011, so at best one cohort has graduated so far (if I am correct in assuming that it offers 2-year courses). It is unlikely that there are many reliable third-party references available yet, certainly not much in the Google-searches listed above. Green Giant (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools and above because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have cleaned up the page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most Indian and Pakistani institutions of higher education are in networks of some sort. There are various reasons--the proprietary ones have the same ownership; many of the major ones have set up branches which have become independent; a particular jurisdiction may amalgamate institutions under its control; the difficult of getting degree-granting status has caused many newer or small institutions to associate themselves with the university that awards the degree--often with no further link, but a purely formal certification.

This is an example of an original single institution in a region having established additional independent colleges. I think colleges such as this are best treated as independent, because otherwise they information would be unclear. the distinction needs to be made between a single college having several campuses, and it is admittedly not always clear--the available information on the web sites is not always sufficient to allow an outside to understand the actual relationship, and it is extremely difficult to find other accessible sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 October	1 November >

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab College Kharian

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

Spammy article about a college that is part of a larger education network that supports mainstream education. Subject appears to lack independent notability per WP:NSCHOOL and contains direct copy and paste and extremely close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep individual secondary schools are counted as notable. Most schools are part of a network, so this is not a reason to delete. The spammy nature is a reason to clean it up though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for deletion because it is part of a network, but because it appears to lack coverage in independent reliable sources. If individual secondary and above schools are still simply afforded 'automatic notability' what is the point of WP:NSCHOOL? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has no point and certainly doesn't reflect consensus established through many AfDs. The situation is that one or two determined editors consistently remove text that reflects the actual consensus. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definately needs to be cleaned up, but unless someone has a larger publication to fill out the encyclopedic stats of the school it should be concise and functional. Some of these books are hard to get, but it really could use more figures and less on the generic "mission" statement. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article (Punjab Group of Colleges) until notability is apparent. The parent group is certainly notable but this branch was only established in 2011, so at best one cohort has graduated so far (if I am correct in assuming that it offers 2-year courses). It is unlikely that there are many reliable third-party references available yet, certainly not much in the Google-searches listed above. Green Giant (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools and above because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have cleaned up the page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most Indian and Pakistani institutions of higher education are in networks of some sort. There are various reasons--the proprietary ones have the same ownership; many of the major ones have set up branches which have become independent; a particular jurisdiction may amalgamate institutions under its control; the difficult of getting degree-granting status has caused many newer or small institutions to associate themselves with the university that awards the degree--often with no further link, but a purely formal certification.

This is an example of an original single institution in a region having established additional independent colleges. I think colleges such as this are best treated as independent, because otherwise they information would be unclear. the distinction needs to be made between a single college having several campuses, and it is admittedly not always clear--the available information on the web sites is not always sufficient to allow an outside to understand the actual relationship, and it is extremely difficult to find other accessible sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kappa (band)

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 per withdrawn by nominator. Blurred Lines 13:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kallis

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

The article was a stub since the first time it was created, and it has not gotten any better. I think that this article should be removed from Wikipedia. Blurred Lines 23:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominated for 2 Primetime Emmys ..--Stemoc (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented by nominator. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have no idea what you mean, I clearly gave a reason why it should be removed, saying that it needs a "valid rationale" makes no entirely sense. Blurred Lines 04:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a small article, an article not being worked on, an article being incomplete, an article not being sourced out (except in the case of Biographies of Living People) is not a recognized reason for deletion. Nor is not liking a subject. If one wants something to go away, they need to do at least cursory investigation which confirms that a subject does not meet inclusion criteria and then must state their case. This needn't be a complex case, just a simple statement that at least a basic effort was made and that the article does not meet the General Notability Guideline or any of the various Special Notability "low bars". I hope this helps. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, being a stub not a reason for deletion. --Soman (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a claim of notability. Stubs are fine and if its too short WP:SOFIXIT. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory research

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

Article creator contested PROD. Reason was "Pure WP:OR essay" Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another clear-cut essay. I got a good number of hits on Google News, but I think they're discussing Community-based participatory research. I can't tell what the hell these articles are even about, though. I'm a fan of postmodernism, but this sounds like Sokal affair-style machine generated content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essay with no recognition or notablity to back up the definition of its author. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Walter (musician)

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

While it should be noted that I have a rather awful track record when it comes to finding sources for music articles, I can't find any reliable third party coverage of this person/band. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of note "23:16, 18 May 2010 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted page William Walter & Co. (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" Sven Manguard Wha? 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography -related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this subject; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 23:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply because the band is a red link and doesn't seem to be qualified for an article either. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pieg

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

No references, and I'm not finding anything supporting the text in a Google search (looked for "pieg literary" and "pieg shakespeare" and found nothing relevant aside from this article's brief text verbatim -- which means either they're not good sources because they copied WP or this article is entirely copyvio). Rhododendrites (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this is an actual term. If this is a hoax, it appears to have been one of the longest-lasting hoaxes on Wikipedia -- over eight years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources and highly contentious claim from Shakespeare. Treat as if a hoax. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G3) by Rmhermen. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phramus

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

Google does not find anything on this except for sites that just copied this article. Possible hoax? Either way unsourced and couldn't find any sources. Rhododendrites (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, especially since the "flutin rod" does not exist either as far as I can see. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 22:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree; it's a hoax. The terms do not exist outside of Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources found for this term. Gong show 23:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. I've tagged the article as such. This is either a complete hoax or something so incredibly obscure that it was never a widely used term. The editor in question seems to be an otherwise good, albeit sporadic, editor so I wonder if this was an early test page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 07:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Valley Educational Press

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

Non-notable publisher, no substantial information, no sources, no improvements since creation in 2006. Rhododendrites (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We can most definitely work on this article because the publisher's publications are well known and easily checked by a Google search.[1] As a whole, the publication of so many books at least confers that as a publisher their publications are all reliably sourcable and so is their market and history. I'm a bit concerned about deleting the stub simply because it isn't the most notable thing in the world - it is a publisher after all, but its function operation and details are all easily sourcable so on these grounds I'm leaning keep. It just needs work. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 05:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete the only gnews hit is its own website. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to RTHK. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Pixton

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

Unsourced Hong Kong radio presenter bio (deceased, not a BLP issue). Might be notable but only a couple lines since it was created 7 years ago. Rhododendrites (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just place it on the article on the radio. Unsourced, BLP or not, is simply not a good reason to have a permanent stub. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RTHK. It seems somewhat and possibly relevant, but it's doubtful that the topic will be notable enough for anything other than a sparse mention. --Cold Season (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He received an OBE for his radio work.[2] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Data Products

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

Sources nor article itself really establish any non-routine coverage, nor notability for this organization at all. A search for sources brings up, interestingly, a press release dated today regarding a seemingly routine acquisition and almost nothing else. Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only real claim of notability is ranking "376 in CRN’s 2010 VAR 500". 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My first Google News search (pretty much only pages 1 and 2) found some news coverage along with PR and, sadly, it seems the PR outweighs the news coverage. There's a local article, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, but it only seems to mention a new CEO. It does seem the CRN rankings are the most significant attention this company has received. A search for UNEDA membership provided another processor.com link (which mentions them twice) and another different search provided a second processor.com link here (supports the Better Business Bureau membership, which wouldn't help this article much). In recent years, the company seems to have really not gotten much attention even with PR (that October 31, 2013 PR seems to be the most recent since 2011). Final searches did not provide anything. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PLB Group Ltd

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

Company profile written like advert with no sources other than company website. Orphaned since 2006. Rhododendrites (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Nothing but an advert which should've been CSD'd years ago.-Davey2010T 01:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one of their wines discussed in a list and a couple of trademark notices but that was all; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. If this does survive AfD, the large chunks of WP:COPYVIO (of this and possibly other pages) would need to go. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Its got a claim of notability, but nothing to back it up. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much to improve this article. The Guardian mention is minor and a Google News search found some links but nothing obviously significant. One of the links, Harpers Wine & Spirit Trade Review, is dead but I found a second link (not significant either) after searching. A search at The Telegraph and East Grinstead Courier and Observer provided nothing. Additional searches at BBC and West Sussex Gazette provided nothing either. Small article for a rather seemingly small company. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A company with a turnover of £142M ought to be notable. Yes it is a bad article and needs wikifying, but that is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Pleochroism by User:Rhododendrites. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pleocroism

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

Page is a duplicate of Pleochroism (apparent misspelling or alternative spelling), and orphaned/unreferenced for years. Rhododendrites (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pleochroism -- this action did not require bringing here to AfD actually. Clearly there is no need for 2 articles on the same subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Redirected. Held off on removing the AfD template because I'm not sure what protocol dictates should be done for an AfD to be withdrawn. --Rhododendrites (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:G3. It's a pretty blatant hoax and attempt to repurpose Bill Gate's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sameer

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

Was nominated for speedy deletion. I declined because it doesn't have any unambigious issues. However, it looks like a hoax to me. Tóraí (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. Entirely non notable person. Fiddle Faddle 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Not sure if anything to be done about the duplicate page at User:Ali-sameer-hacker. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant and obvious hoax. Creator was even to lazy to take out all mentions of the name Gates. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tagged it as a CSD hoax based on the repurposing of Bill Gates' biographical material. Presumably the stellar musical career came from elsewhere, as it shows the signs of a copy-paste (now identified as derived from the Ali Zafar article). AllyD (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC) The WP:FAKEARTICLE in the user space could probably go too. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Silberkraus

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

This article and Samuel Silberkraus (his grandfather) were created around the same time in 2012 in the run up of the 2012 Nevada elections which Stephen was running for. They both contain WP:PUFF with impressive sources and claims that don't hold up under examination, sources that don't mention the name or in passing. There was material reason for Silberkraus to look important in 2012. However he lost the election, and the article has been abandoned, none of the original editors bothered to update that he lost (as of this date it still says he is running). It doesn't pass Notability as a politician since he didn't win and it was a crowded field with many competitors. The child acting roles listed at IMDB are not significant, in fact most of them are listed "uncredited" meaning he was essentially an extra. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search for ("stephen silberkraus" assembly) turns up no coverage by independent sources. Google News and Google News Archives searches for ("stephen silberkraus") and for (silberkraus nevada) turn up nothing at all-- surprising, since I'd have expected at least a passing mention in a story about his primary loss. Some of the article's claims to notability don't appear to be valid: for instance, it's asserted that Silberkraus "was featured" in a Time article, but a search of all four pages of the cited Time article for "silberkraus" turns up nothing. Failed primary candidate for a state legislature seat, who doesn't appear to have received any significant media attention (indeed, hardly any media attention at all): fairly obvious GNG failure. Ammodramus (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe Ammodramus's reasoning is extremely sound on this one. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed politician. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mr.Z-man 05:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Innovate Nigeria

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

Contested CSD, Contested PROD. Reason was "Laudable, yes, but there is no notability established for this organisation. Since it has laudable aims I have chosen this slower proposed deletion route to allow the shortfall to be addressed." So now it is at AfD Fiddle Faddle 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. I couldn't find any reliable sources about this organization at all. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the original speedy reason did not apply, I would still have speedied it as A7, no indication of notability. But since it's here, maybe someone can find something. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While not a speedy candidate, it does not meet N. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost nothing in a Google search of ("Innovate Nigeria" site:.ng). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Babylon series (Imogen Edwards-Jones). (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding Babylon

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

This topic may not meet WP:NBOOK. The Daily Mail piece looks to be a précis of the book by the authors: they are credited on the byline. There's a proper review in the Kaleej Times [3]. —rybec 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Babylon series (Imogen Edwards-Jones). There's a consolidated review in Australian Woman's Day.[4] Brief mention in The Telegraph.[5] Full review in Kaleej Times.[6] In aggregate not enough for a standlone article, but enough for a redirect and merge. Imogen Edwards-Jones wrote a series of 8 "Babylon" books the most popular Hotel Babylon. They should be combined to a series article. If any book gets too long, split off to a standalone. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Making a new merge article and placing the Babylon series into it does not sound like a bad idea at this point. It will reduce the sparse coverage and strengthen content in the presence of others. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(nominator) A merge and redirect seems best to me as well. —rybec 20:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was was speedy delete as the article makes no credible claim of signifance. Non-admin closure. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mamoun

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

I declined a speedy on this because problems with the article are not unambiguous. However, it lacks context or clarity of significance, in my opinion, so I'm placing it for discussion. Tóraí (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources on this person. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to GNU. Sandstein 06:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Enterprise

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

The articles cannot be attributed to reliable sources: The website is unreachable, the source code repository is empty, there are some old packages giving clear evidence that the project never supported the features mentioned in the article or various comparison pages (Comparison of accounting software, Comparison of CRM systems, List of ERP software packages). The artice fails to meet the relevant notability guideline: The mailing list had no announcement since 2009.--Huskytreiber (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End rationale, begin discussion.

Comment - I fixed up the nomination for Huskytreiber (talk · contribs), although it still looks quite unorthodox; I won't be watching so ping me if needed. Ansh6 6 6 20:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found mentions on Heise.de and Salon.com which may be enough to establish notability. Notability isn't temporary, but this project does indeed seem dead. So, maybe it should simply be merged into the main GNU article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY and every one is a dead link. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Likely best option here given it won't meet N and while notability is not temporary, it is the questioned implimentation and lack of verifiability that prompts merge. And for dead links, try Archive.org. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People, the links above to find sources are there for a reason. The topic meets WP:GNG, per the sources found by NinjaRobotPirate and because covered in a plethora of other sources. See short but meaningful mentions here and here, a whole academic paper on the GNU Enterprise development and another where included in a comparative analysis. Also let us remember that notability is not temporary and that the current activity status of the software has nothing to do with its notability. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've just mixed up WP:RS with WP:V. I would indeed consider your mentioned sources as reliable, but they nevertheless don't make the article verifiable, because they don't confirm any of the statements of the article. The academic paper deals with the software development model, something not even mentioned in the article. Can you find any reliable source that confirms that GNUe implements a full Enterprise Resource Planning system (as said in the article), or the support of any of the packages mentioned in the article? Can you find any reliable source for the features mentioned in Comparison of accounting software? It's open source software. Can you point me to the source code of the database layer that handles all the databases mentioned in Comparison of CRM systems? Can you find one single screen shot of the features mentioned in Comparison of accounting software? The article on Heise.de even contradicts the majority of the statements in the article by saying" "GNU Enterprise to date is only a (for the practicable use hardly usable) development environment for business applications" (translated from German). And the funniest thing is the citation for "Development status: Active", which is the projects website, unreachable for years. I do not care if the article is delete or not, but you should know, that I have the strong feeling that most of the assertions in the article do not represent facts but only the ambitious dream of one person which never came true (Vaporware). And that should not be part of a Wikipedia article. Huskytreiber (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant for deletion is that the topic is notable -and it clearly is. That the article contains original research and/or unverifiable statements is true but it is something that can be dealt with editing, not deletion, and as such our deletion policy asks us to not delete, explicitly. AfD is not for cleanup. I may agree with your assessment of issues within the article, but this just means it can be stubified and then rewritten following the sources. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Per the sources found by Cyclopia. Notability is not temporary, and AFD is not for article improvement. If it's covered in WP:RS, then it passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livitup (talk • contribs)
Merge to GNU. There is every sign that this is a dead project that never delivered anything substantial. The sources found by NinjaRobotPirate are both passing mentions, not enough to meet WP:N. The Salon article, especially, only mentions in passing that some other piece of software it is discussing may one day form part of GNUe. The sources found be Cyclopia are better but still mostly passing mentions. Of the two substantial published papers, the Elliot and Scacchi paper is concerned with the culture of developers and is using GNUe as a case study. It is not really telling us anything about GNUe itself, only verifying that there was active development in 2003. The Erbizzoni et al. paper is behind a paywall and I would be very reluctant to accept for notability on the basis of what it says in the abstract (but would take on good faith comments from anyone who has read it). Spinning Spark 13:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GNU. There is a clear lack of "Significant coverage" according to WP:GNG of the project itself or its outcomes. Notability may not be temporary, but it is neither for things that never really got going enough to rise into notability. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks meaningful coverage to establish notability. With the exception of the Erbizzoni, et al, article which I cannot review, all mentions are either in passing, only noting that the software exists, or otherwise not about GNU Enterprise (such as using it as a case study for something else.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GNU. There are reliable sources but the coverage is not of sufficient depth to justify a separate article. - Mr X 01:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Time: Charity Anthology

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

Was nominated for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertisement. I declined because it is not unambiguous IMO but certainly has a very strong whiff.

Adds: Another by the same editor: After Dark: Charity Anthology with the same issues.

Tóraí (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable anthology by a collection of non-notable authors, published by a non-notable publisher. The spammy tone could be managed, if there were a reason to retain this article. The fact that the original editor claims on her user page to be a "marketer and PR girl at a publishing press" certainly makes the whiff of promotion stronger. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My delete !vote applies equally to both articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to tag it as a speedy since it's pretty promotional in tone and intent, as all it's missing is the price tag. Either way, these are decidedly non-notable and both should be deleted. I note that the original editor has been warned against using Wikipedia for spam purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional yes, but not a speediable promotion. Fails N. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as promotional. Fiddle Faddle 15:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this, per WP:IAR or whatever might be appropriate. The nominator and the last delete-voter are each others' socks, and in my judgment this AfD would have been concluded very differently had it not been for the final "delete". One may accept DGG's argument or not, but an argument it is. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture

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

This article is an indiscriminate list of trivia and Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information. It doesn't offer any insight into Eliot's poem The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Nominated for deletion per WP:IPC, WP:ROC and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:IPCEXAMPLES WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA: (A) trivia articles should be avoided (B) this is a collection of trivia that is not important to the T.S. Eliot article or the Prufrock article, and offers no substantive insight into those topics (C) the material isn't substantive enough to include or integrate into either of those articles, (D) "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". (E) There is no context, and it's largely a list of superficial "hey, someone wanted to look smart, so they quoted Eliot. nothing more, just a quote." --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC) ColonelHenry (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as nom. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the excellent and well-argued nominating statement. Can't add anything to the comprehensive nomination. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this minute there is time for decisions and revisions which a minute will not reverse. (That is, as quite adeptly argued above, delete.) Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: - Best delete vote ever. ;-) --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly encyclopedic. It's just a random collection of pop culture references better suited to TV Tropes than Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Only logical decision here. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly.

These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. Not for lack of trying. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonencyclopedic listcruft. Hierophant443 (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Darius

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable author. None of the "references" demonstrate that the subject meets the relevant guidelines - WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO - they merely confirm that the book exists. ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. No sources or book review. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've removed all of the merchant links on the article, but I was unable to find any sources to show that this author meets notability guidelines. There is a possibility that foreign language sources exist, but my observations have usually shown that if an author is notable in FL sources there is usually at least one reliable source in the English language, either in-depth or brief/trivial. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Fields

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

Fails WP:GNG, no notability separate from Pretty Little Liars. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Pretty Little Liars characters. Received significant coverage from E! Online, E! Online again, and the Washington Blade. The character's sexuality seems to have caused some degree of controversy and acclaim, but I'm not sure there's a whole lot to say about it except what I just said. Nonetheless, she does seem to be quite a bit more notable than the average fictional character brought to AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those. The first and last seem to me more about the actress than the character. This time I think a merge is also appropriate since there is some coverage, but it's relatively related to the show and not really the character herself. But I'll leave that to other people to decide. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who they're about does seem somewhat debatable. I'm fine with a merge, too. However, I think we've at least got some potential to add out-of-universe information to this article, which is what I usually look for. Right now, the article is just a collection of plot-lines, but we could probably add a section that discusses the real-world impact of her sexuality. My biggest issue is that there just isn't all that much to say, unlike the enduring influence of someone like Superman, Han Solo, or James Bond. Nobody is going to write scholarly essays on Pretty Little Liars characters, but they might mention her in a discussion of how lesbians are portrayed/received on television. So I'm optimistic about this article, even if it does seem like worthless fancruft currently. Of course, if you'd asked me yesterday if I'd be voting to keep Pretty Little Liars characters yesterday... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points. Let's see what other people have to say. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG, The character's well notable for Pretty Little Liars as well as the controversy.

-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satyabrat Sinha

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

Contested speedy deletion (of sorts). An article with the same name was deleted on 14 March 2013. I'm not sure that this person meets WP:ACADEMIC yet, having completed a PhD in 2009, and become an assistant professor in 2012 according to the staff profile at Presidency University. The general impression II get is that his work has not yet made a major impact, although this might change. In news, there are two hits (one for a blog article in the NY Times and one mention in a Deutsche Welle article). In books, he is apparently mentioned in about 18 "books" (allowing for several other people of the same name), but google searches within some of those fail to show any mention. Green Giant (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. BLP revived 8 months after unanimous delete. Cites in Google scholar are still negligible. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Not significantly different from the version deleted after the previous AfD. And no obvious reason for a change in notability has surfaced. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find anything in a couple broad commercial databases. The "Reviews" listed are by Sinha, not about Sinha, confused me at first. Need sources about Sinha. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 and salt. Too soon, wait another 10 years. --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhesh pai

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

Unsourced biography of an apparently "professional dancer". Article creator Rads786 is a single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage, mainly youtube videos. Why is he considered a sportsman?204.126.132.231 (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Even if this isn't a "tit-for-tat nomination", the simple fact of the matter is that if an article closely related to an article under dispute and created by one of the disputers is AfD'd by the other disputer, the inevitable result will be far more heat than light. Therefore, even if we AGF and say this doesn't fit speedy keep criterion 2D, it does fit WP:IAR. User:Sport and politics and User:MRSC are encouraged to resolve their dispute over Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets/Mayor of Tower Hamlets first, then, once that is done, if this isn't merged and it's still believed to not be a suitable list, it can be renominated for deletion. There is no deadline, and the encyclopedia won't collapse into a black hole if this sits for awhile while a deep breath is taken, everyone has a nice cup of tea and a sit down, and things are hashed out in a civil and respectful fashion that results in a clear WP:CONSENSUS. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Tower Hamlets

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

Wikipeidia is not a repository for lists and the post itself the list is created for is not notable enough to have a separate Wikiepdia article of its own. Wikiepdia is not for creating articles just for the sake of it, which this this article is. If individual holders of the Office are notable then that should be included in the main Tower Hamlets page and a separate page is wholly unneeded. The guidance which should be followed when creating lists can be found here and this list falls foul of not being notable and should be deleted. Sport and politics (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources, including those that are independent of the subject. MRSC (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply The office which is and of itself not notable, therefor makes a list of holders of that office is not notable. It is just a list for the sake of it. It clearly fails WP:GNG as opposed to meeting them. indiviual office holders if they are notable should have their own page and the notable people should be included in the main Tower Hamlets page a separate page clearly fails notability. Sport and politics (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The office appears to be notable, passing the WP:GNG clearly, which makes a list of its holders notable as well. This could be converted into an article about the office, with a list as a section, or both an article and a list could exist. That is a question ofm editorial judgement, and should not be a matter for AfD. DES ^(talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment I think there may be misunderstanding this article is only for the council appointed office holder which has only been in existence since 1995 not the post elected by the public which has been in existence sine 2010. Sport and politics (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it well er notable that this AfD nomination occurred just after a move of a closely related page to which the nominator objected. ~~A bit of forum-shopping perhaps?~~ DES ^(talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is part of a POV fork and should be deleted as it is not a notable subject to warrant an article. Sod all to do with when the page created remember always WP:AGF. I don't really think one local newspaper demonstartes the notabilitiy of the post either more just the notability of its reporting on council business and the Council itself being used as a source is not a demonstration of wider notability. Currently (at the time of writing) seven of the sources are Tower Hamlets council itself 2 sources are the London Gazette and are for Mayors before the current Borough of Tower Hamlets was established in 1995 One is a local government directory which the equivalent of a phone book for local government and the only other source is one local newspaper who appears to be focusing more on the person taking up the office than the office itself. It appears in no doubt that the office exists but the sources do not establish any notability of the office. All the sources do is say this person held this office they give no reason as to why this office is a notable office which warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 19:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Blackman

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

As was the case seventeen months ago, Mr. Blackman has not yet played for Chelsea's senior squad, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Minor youth footballer who has not accomplished anything garnering significant coverage yet. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he actually meets NFOOTY.204.126.132.231 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT - fails WP:GNG and the WP:NFOOTBALL notability guideline. - tucoxn\^talk 02:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't appeared in a fully pro league yet or received significant coverage, which means it fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not salt -- He is certainly not notable yet, but may be one day. The artile is this TOOSOON. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haakon Faste

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

Originally deleted as an uncontested PROD, and restored per a WP:REFUND request. Still doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:PROF or the more general WP:BIO guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible cites in GS. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Way too soon. Doesn't even come close to meeting WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Joire

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

Fails notability guidelines. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep per WP:BARE. She was an important editor and content provider at Engadget, and a "well respected tech blogger" [7]. While it's difficult to find a lot of mainstream media about her, I think there's enough on blogs and tech websites to create a decent article. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Bearian. The "well respected tech blogger" citation is just someones comment on an interview video page (that doesn't even seem to involve the subject) and would be all considerations fail as a credible source. Further, all notability of the subject hinges on their employement by notable companies. I see no stand alone notability and am left wanting to label this article as a case of WP: Hole Sulfurboy (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admitted, the stub is crappy. I can't rescue every article here. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....Which is why I nominated it for deletion. WP:WSIC Sulfurboy (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. Well, I've had my say. Worse comes to worse, it can always be re-created when and if she becomes more notable. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think being the public face of Pebble implies notability. MRSC (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think that being the chief spokesman for a company implies notability in any encyclopedic sense. Certainly there do ot sem to abe any referencesi n the article showing it. The importance of her earlier work does not seem to be demonstrated. I notice the complete absence of reliable third party references. And although she may describe her sexual orientation on her blog, it is not encyclopedic content unless it has some relationship to her notability or has been the subject of significant third party comment. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Her reviews are being picked up and used in news reports, such as [8], [9] and [10] —Anne Delong (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkinhead (rapper)

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

Musician fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO & WP:GNG through non-trivial coverage in reliable sources: [11][12][13][14]. — sparklism ^hey! 15:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sparklism.LM2000 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Johnson, Sr.

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

Seems reasonably un-notable, the only sources regarding this person are his obituary. Dying doesn't seem to be something that makes a person notable. Frumpylittlefellow (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not his death that made him notable, but rather his many accomplishments in fighting against political corruption in the labor movement and New York City politics. Hint: the New York Times does not run 14 paragraph obituaries with two photographs about non-notable people. His extremely common name makes separating the wheat from the chaff challenging when searching on Google, but I am highly confident that many additional sources can be found, in addition to the three already in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The New York Times published at least six articles in the 1951-1953 time period discussing his work to reform the International Longshore Association. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am under the impression that the NYT published the obituary because they considered the deceased to be worthy of notice on account of events which took place during his life. James500 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is generally held that an obituary in a major newspaper such as the NYT easily meets our notability bar. Obituaries are given to people because they deserve them, not just because they die. Otherwise everybody would have an obituary! So in what way is it only his dying that's notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recharge (magazine)

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines - ie link to main info is by the company paid to launch/promote in 2013 ie http://garciamedia.com/blog/articles/precharge_the_renewable_energy_journal_gets_renewed_p quote: It is the third project launch for Garcia Media in 2013.

Other links were from primary sources, or blogs of employees. Remainder are a non-notable industry awards, and an association with a former CEO of a notable organisation, European Wind Energy Association, plus mentions of publications (single issue?) made for trade fairs -( NB have remove all primary and associated sources except garcia media info)

I couldn't find anything to show this new magazine is notable, though a web search is complicated by its common name. Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 05:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 07:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel L. Young

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

Promotional article filled with minutiae and non-independent sources. Subject fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Note, if you disagree, please specify which specific, numbered, criteria under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR you think make the subject notable. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews in reliable sources.

Adams, Angel. "ADHD Grown Up. A Guide to Adolescent and Adult ADHD by Joel Young". Journal of Family Therapy, Vol. 30, No. 1, February 2008
"ADHD grown up; a guide to adolescent and adult ADHD", SciTech Book News, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2007
Sickel. "ADHD Grown Up: A Guide to Adolescent and Adult ADHD", Psychiatric Services January 1, 2008; Vol 59, No. 1; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.59.1.123
Diana Pederson. "Review - ADHD Grown Up", Metapsychology, January 8, 2008; Volume 12, Issue 2
McCabe, Marcia. "Why don't you grow up?" PsycCRITIQUES, Vol 52(46), 2007

--Green Cardamom (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tiny cites in a highly cited field (biomed). A handful of reviews. Does not cross the high bar in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

"many books are published each year, only a small fraction of them are reviewed".[15] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As pointed out by Green Cardamon, this person appears to meet the threshold of notability. However, the article is promotional and non-neutral. My !vote is weak, and I am open to a good argument to the contrary. The COI is highly disturbing, however, I don't believe that COI alone is a proper reason for deletion. Changing to Delete. Convinced by subsequent arguments. This one is too much of a disaster to be salvaged. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He might just be notable as WP:A?UTHOR, but the article is so promotional that the only practical thing is to start over. The combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is a good reason for deletion--we have enough to do improving the articles on really important subjects, rather than by rewriting these to make them acceptable/ . DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A point that is applicable outside BLPs too. Wikipedia has developed to a high degree of maturity and there is plenty of good material in its several million articles. There is now not the need for editors to devote large amounts of esoteric research to bringing articles about insignificant topics up to par. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Weak delete unless someone cares enough to clear the promotional material and write a properly neutral article about the subject before the close of the AfD (I certainly don't) and then continue policing it for recurring COI problems afterwards. Borderline G11 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLOWITUP, DGG and WP:ADVERT .This article is clearly a paid advertisement and promotion for his work with the biography acting as nothing but a WP:COATRACK done by a paid editor across sock accounts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow! Rarely seen such an article. Professionally done, I have to admit. If you don't look closer, you might actually think that this guy is a giant in his field. We should keep this gem somewhere, as it is a beautiful example of what paid advocacy editing can mean for WP! Dr. Young, unfortunately, doesn't even come close to meeting WP:ACADEMIC. As noted above, he might squeak by on WP:AUTHOR, but this article is an irredeemable load of spam, spam, with spam (indeed borderline G11, as David Eppstein said). --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. As far as his professional qualifications, he appears to be a run-of-the-mill psychiatrist who has given his practice a fancy name to make it sound like an important "behavioral center". As far as WP:ACADEMIC goes he doesn't come close. As far as WP:AUTHOR goes, aside from Psychiatric Services I am not impressed with the journals/magazines that chose to review his book; it doesn't exactly sound like it has rocked the field or flown off the shelves. It was put out by a mainstream publisher, but I don't feel it has made him notable as WP defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

João Rodrigo Silva Santos

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

Non-notable footballer, who fails WP:GNG and also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. JMHamo (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Minor footballer, his death has received a little bit of coverage purely because of its nature, but that is not notable either. Giant Snowman 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now shows to meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this guy played for Östers IF, though I'm unable to verify whether he played any matches in Allsvenskan, a fully pro league, which would mean the subject passes WP:NFOOTY. I would suggest the nominator reads WP:RAPID, afterall this biography is about a breaking news event, and if this was nominated for deletion more than five hours after it was created, maybe we would have known if the subject was notable or not. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mentoz86: - Östers IF have only spent 1 season in the Allsvenskan recently (2006), do you have any idea if he was even signed with them in that season, let alone if he played? Basially here we have a potential claim to notability, but one which is unverifiable. How is that notable in any way, shape or form? "He may be notable but I can't prove it" - um okay then! Giant Snowman 16:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me rephrase that: this guy was contracted to Östers IF when the club played in Allsvenskan in 2003, but I'm unable to verify whether he actually played any matches in Allsvenskan. But I doubt that all of the Scandinavia media would call him "former Allsvenskan player" if he didn't play any matches in Allsvenskan. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But even if he has played in the Allsvenskan, has he received "significant coverage" in Brazil, Scandinavia, or eslewhere? Giant Snowman 17:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He played six matches and scored one goal for Öster in Allsvenskan in 2003, according to svenskfotboll.se -77.222.192.193 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - technical NFOOTY pass. Agree with GS, unlikely there is much significant coverage in footballing terms, but add what there is to his recent grisly murder and there is a case for GNG. Would be interested to see what additional sources can be provided and also prepared to change my view should there be little coverage on his death. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - his death has already been reported in the Guardian. not enough on its own for GNG by any means, but if additional sources can be found to show his death received wider international coverage, added to his NFOOTY pass I would remain happy to keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because of his professional appearances. Spiderone 13:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per NFOOTY but it's pretty tenuous. Maybe see how it looks in a month or so, perhaps it will satisfy GNG by then. It can always be reviewed later. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G8 by Tóraí. Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OC Public Libraries

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

redirect needs to be deleted since original article was deleted on 25Oct2013

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Technically, this is the wrong venue -- redirects go to WP:RFD, not AFD. But in this case, it's an uncontroversial candidate for speedy deletion criterion G8 (red-linked redirect), and I've so tagged it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gallow

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

Notability: All the works are self published. The only independent source listed is when Huffington Post show a cover of one of his stories in a short article on free zombie stories from Wattpad (which is an online community for users to post articles, stories, and poems). A search doesn't show up any independent sources. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 15:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self published author with one book. Does not meet minimum WP:AUTHOR guideline of multiple book reviews in reliable sources (Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, etc). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Aguinaldo College ROTC

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

This article fails notability for organizations. It has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; it has not even seen trivial coverage. NoyPiOka (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Philippines), merging any relevant content as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Examining the two articles, I see nothing mergable, and there's no reason to refer from the name of an individual university's department of something to the general topic. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to merge to the ROTC article, as this article is only about the ROTC program of one school. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Normal University – Agusan del Sur Army ROTC

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

This article fails notability for organizations. Tt has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; it has not even seen trivial coverage. NoyPiOka (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Philippines), merging any relevant content as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no reason to redirect, as there is no mergable content. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to merge to the ROTC article, as this article is only about the ROTC program of one school. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to Cinema of West Bengal. Spinning Spark 12:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Bengal

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

There is no precedent of classifying film industries by an undefined geographic area. The region "Bengal" has varied over centuries, this article talks about the pre-1947 region Bengal Presidency which comprises of the present day West Bengal and Bangladesh, both countries having separate film industries "Tollywood" and "Dallywood" respectively (equivalent wikipedia articles being Cinema of West Bengal and Cinema of Bangladesh). Solomon 7968 15:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think more needs to be taken into account than just this article to clean up what's going on here, because the Template:Cinema of Bengal complicates matters (it's really about the Cinema of West Bengal). So, I'd suggest doing the following: rename the template to Template:Cinema of West Bengal (unpiping the link in the title bar). Then, convert this page to a disambiguation between Cinema of West Bengal and Cinema of Bangladesh. redirect this article to Cinema of West Bengal and include a hatlink to Cinema of Bangladesh for the pre-partition film history of Dhaka. I considered the idea that the current article might need to be retained for pre-partition history, but at least on cursory inspection, it seems that everything before 1947 fits nicely into the article for one industry or the other. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two contemporary film industries potentially share more than geographical proximity. They share a common language and pre-partition history. But I'll let editors with better knowledge of the subject and sources to weigh in before deciding whether this is enough justification to have a separate Cinema of Bengal article. Are there sources that cover the two industries (or Bengali language cinema) as one? Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare ~~Ziaur Rahman apparently banned~~ Releasing of Indian films (Hindi & Bengali) in Bangladesh (except joint Indo-Bangladesh production) (see refs) is banned since 1972. The only recent joint production I am aware of is Moner Manush but the film article does not mention that. For the common language, the usual convention I think is not to group film Industries by language. For example Cinema of Austria and Cinema of Germany are separate articles although they share common language. Solomon 7968 16:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian films banned again in Bangladesh". Apr 27 2010. The Indian Express.
"Bangladesh retains Bollywood ban after protests". Apr 27 2010. The Guardian.

Typically, films-by-language are handled solely by category (Category:German-language films, for the above example). And indeed, we have Category:Bengali-language films here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are good points. A one-off, or even a few, joint productions alone wouldn't justify a "Cinema of X+Y" article. And common language may or may not suffice. Basically as I see it, if there are good sources analyzing the two cinemas collectively, than we should have an article, else we should abstain from an on-wikipedia synthesis. For now, I'll sit back and listen to other comments, and revisit this afd in a few days. Abecedare (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's some articles on cinema in other Indian languages, e.g. Malayalam cinema, Gujarati cinema, and other articles on regional cinema which may be in a particular language, e.g. Cinema of Andhra Pradesh which is "also known as Telugu cinema". So an article on film either in a language or in an Indian state would fit with existing patterns. However, Cinema of West Bengal already exists, so I don't see much point in keeping this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapeninsula Unlike the other states of India Punjab and Bengal are unique because they were partitioned in 1947. So Cinema of Bengal≠Cinema of West Bengal. Solomon 7968 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if it makes sense to merge the pre-partition material into the separate articles (and I don't know whether or not it does), we would want to keep (or at any rate not delete) this article for attribution. These editorial matters should be left for the editors of the various articles to sort out. The ancient history of Bengal need not concern us here. There is nothing in this article that requires the AfD axe to be swung. Thincat (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat "Bengal" is an undefined place. This article talks about the British creation Bengal Presidency because back in "ancient history" there was no Cinema. For the "editorial matters should be left for the editors of the various articles to sort out", I am afraid that I don't understand that. Since you are not familiar this topic, just think about Cinema of Anglosphere or Cinema of Russosphere which will obviously be deleted as WP:SYNTHESIS. Solomon 7968 16:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you and your colleagues are sure that everything is covered satisfactorily in Cinema of West Bengal and Cinema of Bangladesh and nothing needs moving from Cinema of Bengal, the last could be deleted. But if anything is moved from Cinema of Bengal that requires attribution for copyright you will have to take one of several actions, the easiest of which is to convert it into a disambiguation page (which seems a good idea) or a redirect. Delete is not a good idea unless there really is nothing at all worthwhile that is not recorded elsewhere. Excuse me, I must just rush off now and read the article about the region of Bengal before it gets deleted :-) Thincat (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cinema of West Bengal. I looked for sources covering the "two cinemas" comprehensively and the best source that I could find is Bengali Cinema: 'An Other Nation', Sharmistha Gooptu, Routledge, whose central thesis is defining/discussing Bengali vs pan-Indian/Hindi cinema and which argues against cinema analysis through the lens of "national cinemas". However even this work says "While the provincial towns of East Bengal provided a market for films produced in Calcutta, there was as such no development of the film industry there until after the country's independence from colonial rule in 1947" and covers the cinema of East Bengal/East Pakistan/Bangladesh only perfunctorily. Several other sources also use "Cinema of Bengal/Bengali Cinema" to refer exclusively to the Calcutta centered film-industry in West Bengal, and the use of the term to cover the amalgam of West Bengal and Bangladesh based cinemas appears to be on-wiki synthesis. Note that while User:Squeamish Ossifrage proposal to convert the page into a disambiguation page for West Bengal/Bangladesh cinema appeals to my sense of fairness I didn't find any reference that refers to the latter as such. So my first preference is a redirect to Cinema of West Bengal but can support a disamb page as the second-best option. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pretty much the only reason I had to lobby for disambiguation was the small amount of pre-partition cinema history in Dhaka (such as Sukumari), which was literally "cinema of Bengal" at the time. Upon reflection, there's a clear primary topic here, though, so I think a hatlink is the right approach rather than disambiguation, especially since few if any sources are explicit about that connection (the best we get from Sharmistha Gooptu is a footnote). I've revised my opinion above accordingly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The suggestions for having a redirect strike me as very reasonable and nothing I have said should be taken as an objection to that happening. Thincat (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or make disambiguation page - I fail to understand the reason behind redirecting the article to Cinema of West Bengal as proposed by some editors here, since the cinemas produced in Bangladesh are mostly in Bengali language and the Bangladeshi cinemas are also referred to as "Bangla cinema" or "Bengali cinema", in fact, a google search on "Bangla cinema" shows results mostly referring to Bangladeshi cinema. Moreover, [16], [17] these 2 books also refer Bangladeshi cinema as "Bangla cinema".--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmzayeem Generally films are defined by nationality (not language). See my German-Austrian point above. Solomon 7968 19:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's why I also proposed to make it a disambiguation page referring to both Cinema of Bangladesh and Cinema of West Bengal, but redirecting the article to Cinema of West Bengal seems to be absurd to me, as it refers to both film industries. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cinema of West Bengal and create a hatnote to Cinema of Bangladesh. The pre-partition history can be included at those two articles, and if it becomes substantial at some point an article split can be considered if and when. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This may seem, on the surface, to be consensus for keeping, but the points raised by the nominator give me enough pause to abstain from finding a consensus to keep; I instead find no consensus to delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

XAudio2

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

Apparently not notable: both existing references are Microsoft authored, subject not found in independent reliable sources, except descriptions of bugs and workarounds Pointillist (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The XAudo2 article may be a stub, but it is notable as it's being used on a lot of software of games as a plug in. As a matter of fact, it is used in emulators like VisualBoyAdvance-M and it is superior to other solutions. I was looking up this software when I found the AFD going on. Primary sources to Microsoft does not indicate deleatiblity, although discouraged, isn't delete worthy. As other Microsoft API's have articles, I can't find any reason this one doesn't. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 01:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "books" link above finds several independent reliable sources, one of which is now in the article. And, as Dark Mistress points out, being a major Microsoft API does have a strong presumption of notability. -- 101.119.14.241 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the article - Pointillist (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article text doesn't include any claim to notability.
AFAICS the brief mentions in Programming 2D Games (list) and Ultimate Game Programming with DirectX (list) don't confer notability, because they only mention the API in passing, not as a significant initiative.
Many (possibly most) officially published sources that deal with technology aren't reliable sources. They are commercially parasites whose business model is to reprint press releases or explain technology stacks that are being promoted by a major player. Such sources aren't independent because being neutral is expensive and anyway very few people want them to be (there's a much larger market for a deep-but-partisan book about Knockout than there is for a shallow-but-neutral title that compares all front-end frameworks). Nor are they reliable, because they often just repeat what has been published by the vendor, rather than independently investigating what the vendor claims.

Comments on the !votes above - Pointillist (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that if anything has a Microsoft marketing label is automatically enjoys encyclopedic notability. Indeed I raised this four months ago at WikiProject Windows. So far no-one has replied to that, so we should apply the usual notability criteria.
The statement by Dark Mistress (who has made 65 article edits so far on enwiki) that "As a matter of fact, it is used in emulators like VisualBoyAdvance-M and it is superior to other solutions." requires a source for each claim.
The reasoning by 101.119.14.241 (who has made 4 article edits so far on enwiki) that "As other Microsoft API's have articles" is a discredited Other stuff argument. As it says there: Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Well, they'll have to go, too.

Sorry, that's inaccurate. As anyone can see by reading this page, the IP comments were "The books link above finds several independent reliable sources" and "being a major Microsoft API does have a strong presumption of notability" -- both of which are true statements. The first can be easily checked; the second reflects the fact that the Microsoft platforms are (for good or ill) the dominant ones. Obscure APIs that nobody uses or refers to should not have articles, but major ones should. -- 101.119.15.78 (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I accidentally attributed a Dark Mistress statement to the IP. Sorry about that - Pointillist (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that XAudio2 is a "major" API isn't borne out by the sources I checked. This claim should be sourced in the article. - Pointillist (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book Ultimate Game Programming with DirectX discusses XAudio2 in depth on pages 283-289, more than a passing mention. There is an 8-part tutorial on Xaudio2 at win32developer.com. I do not share the nom's deep cynicism of the trade press and regard both of these as independent reliable sources. In addition, there are independent reliable sources, in less depth, that could also be useful, such as the book Professional XNA Programming: Building Games for Xbox 360 and Windows with XNA Game Studio 2.0, which has about half a page on that discusses it and the two articles at at Maximum PC and Ars Technica which cover the XAudio2 debut. The existence of multiple in-depth reliable sources shows notability, per WP:GNG. While the article could be developed in greater depth, it has no major problems. In particular, the article does assert the notability of XAudio2 as the successor to DirectSound. I don't see any evidence of promotion or non-neutrality in the article. The article has no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: I don't have that source book, but if the XAudio2 content is the same as this version at ultimategameprogramming.com I don't agree that it demonstrates notability. It's just a brief intro followed by pages of source code, much of it copied directly from MSDN documentation (e.g. the Voices section starts with code copied from IXAudio2::CreateMasteringVoice method). The Ars Technica source is a mention in passing (they even say that XAudio2 was overshadowed by the DirectX 10.1 announcement). The Maximum PC item is a blog post summarizing Microsoft's announcement. Mark, I'm not cynical about the reasons people write and buy technical books: my desk is surrounded by O'Reilly, Manning, Apress, Springer etc titles written by people who have specialized in their area. I just don't kid myself that they are neutral. It's simple: if you've spent two years understanding MongoDB or SharePoint, you've already chosen your platform and – at least in terms of your experience and mental bandwidth – rejected the alternatives. I entirely understand that if you are a Windows/XBox games developer then the sound API is really important to you. But if I can't find XAudio2 discussion by searching any major technology title (I tried drdobbs.com, ieeexplore.ieee.org, infoq.com, sdtimes.com, computer.org, computerworld.com, pcmag.com, zdnet.com), then it isn't notable. - Pointillist (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly find articles on ieeexplore.ieee.org -- for some researchers, use of the low-level sound API is essential. -- 101.119.14.67 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note: using advanced search (article text as well as metadata) returned this and this. But I don't have an IEEE login and this week I won't be visiting a library that has. Can anyone check those articles to see whether the mentions are significant? - Pointillist (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I may buy the $31.00 article... I'm not sure if I can actually disclose the information however. Such disclosures would almost certainly bear a non-disclosure agreement... I'll talk to my grandmother to see if I can buy it, but I can't guarantee it. If I do however, I would like to know if I can disclose it. I have a feeling I almost certainly can't, but I can verify it. It's in a PDF files, and I don't know if it's got DRM attached to it or not, ether way we're looking at serious breach of contract. If anyone has time to look at the strings attached, reply later. If I do buy it, I'll let you know. Even members have to pay $13.00, but since I'm not, I pay full price. Maybe the government of US has them for free, I doubt it. I'll let you know later in a couple of days to see if I can buy it, K? --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 19:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to both of these articles. For Aural Proxies and Directionally-Varying Reverberation for Interactive Sound Propagation in Virtual Environments, Xaudio2 is mentioned in the implementation section, but only in one sentence. For Rendering Sound and Images Together, Xaudio2 is again only mentioned as one of several game audio API. Interesting articles, but I'm afraid that neither of these sources count as in-depth. --Mark viking (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: Thanks very much for checking. @Dark Mistress: Most college/uni libraries have access to that sort of material for free. It won't necessarily be obvious – you might need to ask your librarian. Actually, I could have read them but only when I'm on campus at my old university, I don't have the right remote access right now. Unfortunately there are far fewer independent computing/development magazines around compared with 15–20 years ago, so it is harder to find proper references for more recent technologies. I did check in good faith: I'm usually an "inclusionist"! - Pointillist (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: Just to confirm: are you still !voting to keep? - Pointillist (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Mark viking (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would point out that, apart from the nom, all the !votes here are "keep." -- 101.119.14.206 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but is it relevant? It is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of !votes. Anyway, if you want to use numeric measures only two of us can demonstrate significant Wikipedia experience: Mark viking has made 2842 article edits, I've made 5365, including comprehensively sourcing and extending articles like Bed management and Kilburn Priory to save them at AfD. - Pointillist (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I've been a Wikipedia IP-editor for several years. And my experience tells me: no closing admin is going to call three "keeps" a consensus to delete. -- 13:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.15.86 (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 delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NAZA TTDI Mosque

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

Delete does not appear to be a notable building [[18]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 05:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't even say why this building may be notable. FurrySings (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOGI Awards

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

All references provided seem to be connected to the subject and no widespread coverage [[19]]. At most this should be a redirect to the organization that awards them but I'm not seeing how it passes WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOGIs are to the diving world what Oscars and Emmys are to the motion picture and television industries. There are already Wikipedia pages relative to those awards as well as others for music, etc. (For examples see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscars and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy). The NOGI is now in its 53rd year and merits one too. If you look at how many NOGI honorees are already subjects of Wikipedia articles and already mention their NOGI award on their page, you will see why this page is needed. And, if you read through you will see that the information is not simply copied and does not violate copyright. Although the list of the honorees contains the same information that can be found on the Academy of Underwater Arts & Sciences website, it is presented in a different and far more useful way, and it links to many of the honorees who have Wikipedia pages about them. I suspect others can add a great deal to this page and I highly encourage them to do so. The 53rd Annual Awards Gala is to be held in Orlando on November 7, 2013 and there will be international news coverage, perhaps some of that coverage will help strengthen this page. RebaLee74 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This source demonstrates some of what new User:RebaLee74 states above. A reasonable search turns up this and this. I'm satisfied this page covers a significant award ceremony associated with a narrow but recognized field. I'd think that lots of offline sources could be produced, the awards being presented for 50+ years. BusterD (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, Oscar of the diving world and some of the most important oceanographers, water-centric artists (i.e. Wyland), and under water filmmakers have won awards. Might have to be a stub, but it passes our general notability guidelines if you do your digging. SarahStierch (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Staff appreciation

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

Article is written as a how-to essay. Only sources cited are two subpages of a single website, which requires registration. Overall subject might be incorporated into a small subsection of Human resources management article; but there's no sourced content in this article that'd justify a merge recommendation. Ammodramus (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blog-like how-to. Work motivation, among others, covers this in a far more encyclopedic manner. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Seems to me like a pretty clear-cut example of someone using Wikipedia to host a personal essay. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. More of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of national football teams by highest FIFA ranking

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was "There is no need for an entirely separate table (and article) for this subject." PROD was removed with the rationale "Page details topic not individually represented elsewhere. Without this page individual teams have to be sourced to their own page, proving both inconvenient and resulting in comparisons being unable to be drawn between historical team performance." The counter-argument is, of course, that Wikipedia is not a stats book. Comparing national teams by their highest FIFA World Rankings position is a very good example of a stat that should not be represented on a separate page. The best alternative would be to revamp the List of men's national association football teams and List of women's national association football teams articles so that the appropriate stats can be included in columns of a table, but let's not worry about alternatives until the fate of this article has been determined. – Pee Jay 13:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 13:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS. Interesting? Yes. Encyclopedic? No. Giant Snowman 15:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTSTATS. As mentioned by the nominator, the goals of this page could be covered in an existing page with the right type of formatting but this page doesn't warrant its own article. C 679 11:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails both WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTN. The information could instead be included in List of men's national association football teams or List of women's national association football teams. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Cerutti

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

Non-notable author and professor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail AUTHOR, PROF and GNG - and to be WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.[20]-- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few books, a few cites. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will Rawdon

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

Samwalton9 (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the deletion reason by the nom?204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced biography with no evidence of notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GS, no intl apps nor has any of the teams he has been involved with been involved with been in an FPL. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a youth player in a minor league. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – hasn't played for any significant teams, not notable in his own right. C 679 21:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tanggu Railway Station. One half a sentence was suitable for merging, which I have done. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tangu Railway Station

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

Typo. Should be Tanggu Railway Station. GZWDer (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - A merge to Tanggu Railway Station appears to be in order here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the best solution me thinks. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanggu Railway Station and tag {{R from misspelling}} - nothing to merge. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query Are we sure these refer to the same station? Because "Tangu" says it is on the Jinbin Passenger Railway, an under-construction route, while "Tanggu" says it is on the Jingha Railway... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chinese Wikipedia says both those lines go/will go through that station. _dk (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanggu Railway Station per Whispering Wind. aycliffe^talk 20:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9 Queens

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

Seems to be an advertisement, not neutral 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 11:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a bit promotional, but not too bad. Many of the links are dead, but I can find the articles with a web search. Looks to meet WP:N, WP:ORG is a bit more questionable. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks way too parochial to me. Coverage in local press, but not nationally/globally. If every 'local' initiative of this type had an article, Wikipedia would be flooded with them. Don't forget, there will be similar initiatives all over Europe and further afield also. I have no problem with initiatives that are being rolled out and supported on a national basis, as they should have articles in the chess press, national newspapers etc. However, my impression so far is that these sources don't offer enough gravitas to confer notability. Rather than being entirely promotional, per the comments above, I feel that the author is also relying on the high profiles of the individual founders to attempt to strengthen the case for the article. This too, sets the alarm bells ringing. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Brittle heaven - the coverage is all local. And nothing really links to it except Jennifer Shahade. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per User:Brittle heaven. Relevant ~~policy guideline~~ essay is WP:MILL. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Victor Colicchio#Personal life. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dionna Dal Monte

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

Non-notable musician whose only claim to fame is by raising a bit of a kerfuffle over the question of whether she is a neo-Nazi or not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn´t agree more. The page should be deleted. Antifascisti (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. Her attention-starved antics may have caused a brief controversy among bloggers, but she's hardly notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Victor Colicchio#Personal life. All she's known for at this point in time is for her now infamous tattoo. There was a small amount of coverage, but nowhere near enough for this to be considered anything other than WP:ONEEVENT. If she gains any more coverage outside of that point, this article can always be re-created. Until that point, she just hasn't had enough coverage to really be considered notable enough for her own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Żmien L-Ispanjoli

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

Unreferenced substub; as written clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:V. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a couple of references as well as I can at the moment. I may have spare time later today to do more. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The review in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies seems like a reliable source, if we could find one or two more it would be quite satisfactory. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISSA DaCosta Cup Football Competition 2013

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

Non notable school competition. Contested prod with no reason given. Contravenes WP:NSEASONS as this is not a top professional league. Competition is merely a school competition and not even a national one.Also contravenes WP:NOTSTATS due to lack of significant sources prose. Fenix down (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, minor competition. Giant Snowman 09:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to also violate WP:NOTWEBHOST, in addition to the concerns raised above which I agree with. C 679 09:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EP (BrightSide EP)

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

non notable, self released EP by non notable band. noq (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I note that the article now says "EP received positive reviews from various Greek e-magazines and internet radio stations", and provides links to several. Do these seem to confer any notability at all? if not, why not? Was any attempt at WP:BEFORE done? (note: I declined an A9 speedy on the article.) DES ^(talk) 16:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching some of the keywords in the article in Greek did not turn up any results. Some of the reviews may or may not be reliable, but the one hosted on Blogspot clearly isn't. I was unable to find anything in Greek or English pertaining to the band itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But for the one line that claims positive critical reception from vague sources, this would be a strong candidate for CSD A9. Self-published music very rarely passes the minimum standards for notability. Super Mario Man 19:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a self published CD with reviews in two mediocre sources. I don't see this as indicating significant notability for an article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Pesudovs

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

Doesn't appear to be notable (per WP:BIO) - the only reference is a page on his employers website. Orphan. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable within his field. For example he received "The Garland W. Clay Award (established 1978)... presented to the author or authors of the manuscript published in Optometry and Vision Science that has been most widely cited in the world of scientific literature in the preceding five years." Clearly at the top of his field. Plenty of coverage in reliable inependent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think that the Garland Clay award establishes notability (even if one ignores the fact that Pesudov is a member of the editorial board that awards this prize). However, the Web of Science lists plenty of publications that have been cited quite frequently (ignoring any cites to book chapters): four of them have been cited over 90 times (max: 104), total cites over 2400, h-index of 27. This is far beyond what we usually accept as evidence of meeting WP:ACADEMIC#1. The article does indeed need a lot of work, I agree. --Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From what I could find I already considered the man notable and Randykitty's info above topped it all. Yintan 16:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding to the above, there is also a dedicated write-up on him in Clinical and experimental optometry (2010) 93(1). Agricola44 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Silberkraus

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL and fails WP:GNG. Looking at the page, it seem to qualify - ten sources and even a Guardians postage stamp. Well, that postage stamp is a "photo" stamp tribute from a Wikipedian whose talk page shows issues with uploading images.[21] A Google search of Guardians.org[22] for Silberkraus does not bring up any result. Several of the references in the article link to pages that have no independent source material about Silberkraus and I did not find any support for the claim that he is known as one of the founding fathers of modern thermoplastics.[23] This coupled with a 30 October 2013 post at the Help Desk from someone identifying herself to be his daughter,[24] leads to a conclusion that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is invoked. Also, there is not enough source material to overcome WP:GNG. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several of the sources cited in the article only mention Silberkraus in passing; others appear not to mention him at all. Google searches for ("samuel silberkraus" plastic), ("samuel silberkraus" plastics), ("samuel silberkraus" thermoplastic), ("samuel silberkraus" thermoplastics), and ("samuel silberkraus" "santa monica") produce no evidence of significant media coverage. Searching Google Books for ("samuel silberkraus") turns up five hits, all of which appear to be only passing mentions. Searching Google News Archives for ("samuel silberkraus") yields no hits. Seems to be a fairly clear GNG failure here. Ammodramus (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stephen Silberkraus is another family member. He ran for political office in 2012, the same time these articles were created, thus material reason to WP:PUFF importance. Same situation with that article, reliable looking sources that don't mention Silberkraus or in passing. The article looks abandoned no one bothered to update that he lost.[25] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an AfD for Stephen as well. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lexie Lane

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

A blogger, the only coverage I can see about her or her book is in blogs. There are no reliable sources and barely any secondary sources cited here (I started to remove some then realised the size of the problem). The personal info is entirely uncited too. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR criteria. Sionk (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Just another self-promoting blogger. I can't find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry L. Richman

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

A social media expert and publisher who has managed to get profiled on Wikipedia for several years with little basis that I can see. Sources used in the article are not independent or reliable and I can't see any online. If he's been mentioned in the Charlotte Examiner that doesn't amount to general notability. Sionk (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno - he seems more notable as the founder/CEO of Century Publishing than as a social media expert. I'd actually heard of some of the books they've published. Perhaps the article should be about the publishing company? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He would only be notable for the books he has personally authored under WP:AUTHOR, not books his company published. His most popular book appears to be Improving Your Project Management Skills, [26] but I can't find serious book reviews only a dodgy vanity review by "PM World Journal".[27] Similar problem for Project Management Step-By-Step. Usually if authors have book reviews, they'll quote them on the author website or Amazon page - no reviews are quoted. That leaves GNG sources and don't see any. Since there are no special notability rules for business people, founding a company is not considered inherently notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. He seems to be a noteworthy author, since he has personally authored 13 books ( see http://centurypubl.com/Richman_Larry_publications_author.html ), plus articles in professional magazines and journals. He seems to fit with the Notability Guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability He has had coverage in independent sources, quoted in the Salt Lake City newspaper Deseret News. The Google search https://www.google.com/search?q=%22larry+richman%22+site%3Adeseretnews.com&oq=%22larry+richman&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j0l3.4103j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 shows 139 references to him in the Deseret News. Seems notable enough to keep the entry. Rebuilding a huge website like LDS.org is also impressive. -- Bennett908 (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per GNG, coverage in the same news outlet usually counts as a single source. But with that much coverage one has to ask if he has ever been a columnist or worked for Deseret News, have friends or family there or some other connection? In any case it's probably at best one source. Other sources? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. His books seen legitimate. Several were published by AMACOM, one of the world’s largest publishers of business books. See http://www.thefreelibrary.com/netLibrary+and+AMACOM+to+Simultaneously+Release+eBooks+and+Print...-a059610265 and http://www.librarything.com/publisher/258/AMACOM I verified his books at amacombooks.org. Two of his seven books on project management are college texts in their second and third editions.

Here are two examples of published reviews of his books http://projectmanager.com.au/skills/review-improving-project-management-skills-larry-richman/ and http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/book_reviews_3/book2.htm

Richman was recently quoted at length in the article “Entering the world of LDS blogging” in the DeseretNews.com http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865589490/Entering-the-world-of-LDS-blogging.html?pg=all His blog has a monthly readership of 36,000.

He was also a guest speaker at Brigham Young University (https://video.byui.edu/media/Larry+Richman+%22Learning+through+Life's+Trials%22/0_6g3uxzea ) That’s fairly notable.

The bottom line is that his entry has been whittled down over the years so that now it looks pretty lean, but I think he’s substantial enough to not delete the entry. The notability guidelines say that “For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.” So, even if his notability is somewhat unclear, I don’t see that as sufficient reason to delete the entry. In fact, it seams reasonable to re-introduce some of the stuff that has been taken out over the years where it’s from verifiable sources. Bylanrichter (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some other sources: [28] , [29] —Anne Delong (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Green Cardamom. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an author. Some of his books are indeed by one of the most impt publishers in the field, and "Project management step by step " alone is in 1,495 libraries a/c worldcat. Some of the other content does need trimming. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benoit Pleska

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

I'm not sure I see much in the way of independent coverage in reliable sources. I do see a few interviews in some woefully obscure economic papers, but the fact that he receives no coverage even in Ziarul Financiar, the best known Romanian financial newspaper, much less in the mainstream Romanian papers, is rather telling.

What I do see a lot of is promotion. Two accounts have edited the article: AndOnofriesei and AndreeaOnof. The first is a single-purpose account; the second almost one, having added some promotional content to Banca Transilvania as well. And who might Andreea Onofriesei be? Why, an employee of Saatchi & Saatchi... - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoàng Danh Ngọc

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hoang Danh Ngoc

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. He has only played in the non-fully pro V-League. The last afd failed to reach a consensus largely due to a lack of participation. Objections to the last afd asserted that he met WP:GNG, however one source that goes beyond the usual trivia does not constitute significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fenixdown has shown very well that this player is indeed notable. I will vote Keep here, however, I would would recommed someone try to implement all this information into the article because this article does not look like one which passes WP:GNG at all. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails WP:NFOOTY, but appears to pass GNG. I am not a vietnamese speaker, but there does seem to be a reasonable amount of articles out there which focus on him:

There are also a number of other articles specifically headlining this player here and here, although not all are about him.

All of these links come from one Vietnamese news site. I think it is reasonably safe to say that in Vietnam, he appears to be an up and coming footballer, who is also a bit of a character, getting in trouble with the FA on a number of occassions and attracting a fair bit of media coverage. Seems like a pretty safe GNG pass to me. The article needs expanding and addressing by a Vietnamese speaker, not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one website (tinthethao.com.vn) covering a player's on-field antics on a few occasions does not constitute "significant" coverage. Giant Snowman 09:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage has now been demonstrated. Giant Snowman 11:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above is simply an example that the player has received significant coverage, it was not, as I expected people to realise, to suggest that he has only received coverage from this website. Here are more links to articles specifically about the player from a completely different websites:

These are not and neither are the first lot I put up, as far as I can make out routine match reports, the headlines of the articles clearly indicate that they are specifically discussing the player. There is coverage of his football performance, his personal life, his disciplinary issues and interviews with the player as well on a number of sites. There are seven websites listed here and these links all come from the first two pages of a google search for the player's name (and photos on most articles seem to confirm to me we are not dealing with different people). This seems to me to be quite a lot of evidence for GNG from just the first two pages, I think it is reasonably safe to assume that there is more if someone with knowledge of the language was able to go through more links. Like I said before, this article needs attention from a native speaker, not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fenix down. There's enough coverage both sporting and personal to pass GNG. I'm not a Vietnamese speaker either, but Google translate makes it clear that many of the articles listed above are devoted to the subject, and several are quite lengthy and certainly non-trivial. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Max Russo

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

Article does not show subject has notability seperate from Wizards of Waverly Place. Notability is not inherited and must be established by multiple third-party sources. The article currently has a grand total of no sources, and Google News only turns up articles about Jake T. Austin and recaps of the show. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters Can I ask why these 'character on kids show' articles aren't redirected first to see if that course is accepted before an AfD? No sources here and unlikely to be found. Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters. Not a notable fictional character; no sources. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters. Not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Williams (American football)

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

The article makes no assertion of notability. Nathan Williams was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there isn't sufficient non-routine coverage or accomplishment to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 30 it still claimed he played for Miami, even though he'd been released over two months ago. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to this simple web search there appear to be many, many newsworthy articles mentioning the subject. At this volume of content there is clear interest in the individual and clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS specifically lists that argument as one to avoid. Any player for a Division I football team is going to show up in Google News results. It signifies nothing. Before nominating Williams I consulted his Ohio State profile. Despite being a puff piece it recorded no school records by him, nor no national awards. Before nominating this I also, anticipating that you would make this very post, trawled through the first five pages of Google News hits. It's all trivial mention in game coverage. None of these articles are about him as an individual. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're misunderstanding. WP:GOOGLEHITS refers to simply saying that there are "X number" of Google hits and therefore it is notable. What I've stated is that a simple google search has yielded a good number of news websites covering the subject. That's different. One says "lots of hits on anything" another says "lots of coverage in legitimate sources" -- oh, and WP:N does not require that the subject of a news article be the same as the subject of a Wikipedia article to establish notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than routine coverage an NCAA athlete would receive as Mackensen mentioned above. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NGRIDIRON and NCOLLATH. Coverage is just routine sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Coverage is simply routine information. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment coverage is far and away above routine sports coverage of basic box scores. See essay WP:NOTROUTINE for more details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's info out there that isn't in the article, which is rather surprising as this person got a fair bit of coverage as a freshman for a shoplifting charge. So that plus in-depth coverage such as this article tips it into WP:GNG passage. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine coverage of a Division 1 collegiate player. Not sufficient for a GNG pass, in my estimation, nor are criteria for the low bar for pro athletes met. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tarc. I wouldn't say he passes WP:NGRIDIRON, but with the shoplifting thing and the routine coverage I'd say he squeaks by the general notability guideline. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think a shoplifting charge is regular routine coverage, and everything else is general coverage, fails WP:GNG (more coverage than most but still fails) and WP:ATHLETE. We need to stop with that heavy inclusionism of keeping borderline notable BLPs. Secret ^account 14:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shoplifting is very common and many places cover the names of people who are charged and convicted with crimes. Bottom line is his athletic career and it doesn't warrant notability WP:ATHLETE PeteBaltar (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tarc. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete We wouldn't bother with an article on a shoplifter were he not already notable, and as far as sports are concerned this guy just didn't cut it. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, and hasn't received enough coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 05:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 per withdrawn by nominator. Blurred Lines 13:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kallis

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

The article was a stub since the first time it was created, and it has not gotten any better. I think that this article should be removed from Wikipedia. Blurred Lines 23:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominated for 2 Primetime Emmys ..--Stemoc (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented by nominator. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have no idea what you mean, I clearly gave a reason why it should be removed, saying that it needs a "valid rationale" makes no entirely sense. Blurred Lines 04:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a small article, an article not being worked on, an article being incomplete, an article not being sourced out (except in the case of Biographies of Living People) is not a recognized reason for deletion. Nor is not liking a subject. If one wants something to go away, they need to do at least cursory investigation which confirms that a subject does not meet inclusion criteria and then must state their case. This needn't be a complex case, just a simple statement that at least a basic effort was made and that the article does not meet the General Notability Guideline or any of the various Special Notability "low bars". I hope this helps. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, being a stub not a reason for deletion. --Soman (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a claim of notability. Stubs are fine and if its too short WP:SOFIXIT. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory research

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

Article creator contested PROD. Reason was "Pure WP:OR essay" Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another clear-cut essay. I got a good number of hits on Google News, but I think they're discussing Community-based participatory research. I can't tell what the hell these articles are even about, though. I'm a fan of postmodernism, but this sounds like Sokal affair-style machine generated content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essay with no recognition or notablity to back up the definition of its author. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Walter (musician)

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

While it should be noted that I have a rather awful track record when it comes to finding sources for music articles, I can't find any reliable third party coverage of this person/band. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of note "23:16, 18 May 2010 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted page William Walter & Co. (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" Sven Manguard Wha? 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography -related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this subject; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 23:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply because the band is a red link and doesn't seem to be qualified for an article either. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pieg

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

No references, and I'm not finding anything supporting the text in a Google search (looked for "pieg literary" and "pieg shakespeare" and found nothing relevant aside from this article's brief text verbatim -- which means either they're not good sources because they copied WP or this article is entirely copyvio). Rhododendrites (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this is an actual term. If this is a hoax, it appears to have been one of the longest-lasting hoaxes on Wikipedia -- over eight years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources and highly contentious claim from Shakespeare. Treat as if a hoax. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G3) by Rmhermen. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phramus

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

Google does not find anything on this except for sites that just copied this article. Possible hoax? Either way unsourced and couldn't find any sources. Rhododendrites (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, especially since the "flutin rod" does not exist either as far as I can see. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 22:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree; it's a hoax. The terms do not exist outside of Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources found for this term. Gong show 23:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. I've tagged the article as such. This is either a complete hoax or something so incredibly obscure that it was never a widely used term. The editor in question seems to be an otherwise good, albeit sporadic, editor so I wonder if this was an early test page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 07:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Valley Educational Press

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

Non-notable publisher, no substantial information, no sources, no improvements since creation in 2006. Rhododendrites (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We can most definitely work on this article because the publisher's publications are well known and easily checked by a Google search.[30] As a whole, the publication of so many books at least confers that as a publisher their publications are all reliably sourcable and so is their market and history. I'm a bit concerned about deleting the stub simply because it isn't the most notable thing in the world - it is a publisher after all, but its function operation and details are all easily sourcable so on these grounds I'm leaning keep. It just needs work. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 05:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete the only gnews hit is its own website. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to RTHK. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Pixton

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

Unsourced Hong Kong radio presenter bio (deceased, not a BLP issue). Might be notable but only a couple lines since it was created 7 years ago. Rhododendrites (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just place it on the article on the radio. Unsourced, BLP or not, is simply not a good reason to have a permanent stub. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RTHK. It seems somewhat and possibly relevant, but it's doubtful that the topic will be notable enough for anything other than a sparse mention. --Cold Season (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He received an OBE for his radio work.[31] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Data Products

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

Sources nor article itself really establish any non-routine coverage, nor notability for this organization at all. A search for sources brings up, interestingly, a press release dated today regarding a seemingly routine acquisition and almost nothing else. Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only real claim of notability is ranking "376 in CRN’s 2010 VAR 500". 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My first Google News search (pretty much only pages 1 and 2) found some news coverage along with PR and, sadly, it seems the PR outweighs the news coverage. There's a local article, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, but it only seems to mention a new CEO. It does seem the CRN rankings are the most significant attention this company has received. A search for UNEDA membership provided another processor.com link (which mentions them twice) and another different search provided a second processor.com link here (supports the Better Business Bureau membership, which wouldn't help this article much). In recent years, the company seems to have really not gotten much attention even with PR (that October 31, 2013 PR seems to be the most recent since 2011). Final searches did not provide anything. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PLB Group Ltd

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

Company profile written like advert with no sources other than company website. Orphaned since 2006. Rhododendrites (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Nothing but an advert which should've been CSD'd years ago.-Davey2010T 01:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one of their wines discussed in a list and a couple of trademark notices but that was all; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. If this does survive AfD, the large chunks of WP:COPYVIO (of this and possibly other pages) would need to go. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Its got a claim of notability, but nothing to back it up. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much to improve this article. The Guardian mention is minor and a Google News search found some links but nothing obviously significant. One of the links, Harpers Wine & Spirit Trade Review, is dead but I found a second link (not significant either) after searching. A search at The Telegraph and East Grinstead Courier and Observer provided nothing. Additional searches at BBC and West Sussex Gazette provided nothing either. Small article for a rather seemingly small company. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A company with a turnover of £142M ought to be notable. Yes it is a bad article and needs wikifying, but that is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Pleochroism by User:Rhododendrites. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pleocroism

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

Page is a duplicate of Pleochroism (apparent misspelling or alternative spelling), and orphaned/unreferenced for years. Rhododendrites (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pleochroism -- this action did not require bringing here to AfD actually. Clearly there is no need for 2 articles on the same subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Redirected. Held off on removing the AfD template because I'm not sure what protocol dictates should be done for an AfD to be withdrawn. --Rhododendrites (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:G3. It's a pretty blatant hoax and attempt to repurpose Bill Gate's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sameer

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

Was nominated for speedy deletion. I declined because it doesn't have any unambigious issues. However, it looks like a hoax to me. Tóraí (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. Entirely non notable person. Fiddle Faddle 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Not sure if anything to be done about the duplicate page at User:Ali-sameer-hacker. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant and obvious hoax. Creator was even to lazy to take out all mentions of the name Gates. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tagged it as a CSD hoax based on the repurposing of Bill Gates' biographical material. Presumably the stellar musical career came from elsewhere, as it shows the signs of a copy-paste (now identified as derived from the Ali Zafar article). AllyD (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC) The WP:FAKEARTICLE in the user space could probably go too. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Silberkraus

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

This article and Samuel Silberkraus (his grandfather) were created around the same time in 2012 in the run up of the 2012 Nevada elections which Stephen was running for. They both contain WP:PUFF with impressive sources and claims that don't hold up under examination, sources that don't mention the name or in passing. There was material reason for Silberkraus to look important in 2012. However he lost the election, and the article has been abandoned, none of the original editors bothered to update that he lost (as of this date it still says he is running). It doesn't pass Notability as a politician since he didn't win and it was a crowded field with many competitors. The child acting roles listed at IMDB are not significant, in fact most of them are listed "uncredited" meaning he was essentially an extra. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search for ("stephen silberkraus" assembly) turns up no coverage by independent sources. Google News and Google News Archives searches for ("stephen silberkraus") and for (silberkraus nevada) turn up nothing at all-- surprising, since I'd have expected at least a passing mention in a story about his primary loss. Some of the article's claims to notability don't appear to be valid: for instance, it's asserted that Silberkraus "was featured" in a Time article, but a search of all four pages of the cited Time article for "silberkraus" turns up nothing. Failed primary candidate for a state legislature seat, who doesn't appear to have received any significant media attention (indeed, hardly any media attention at all): fairly obvious GNG failure. Ammodramus (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe Ammodramus's reasoning is extremely sound on this one. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed politician. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mr.Z-man 05:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Innovate Nigeria

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

Contested CSD, Contested PROD. Reason was "Laudable, yes, but there is no notability established for this organisation. Since it has laudable aims I have chosen this slower proposed deletion route to allow the shortfall to be addressed." So now it is at AfD Fiddle Faddle 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. I couldn't find any reliable sources about this organization at all. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the original speedy reason did not apply, I would still have speedied it as A7, no indication of notability. But since it's here, maybe someone can find something. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While not a speedy candidate, it does not meet N. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost nothing in a Google search of ("Innovate Nigeria" site:.ng). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Babylon series (Imogen Edwards-Jones). (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding Babylon

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

This topic may not meet WP:NBOOK. The Daily Mail piece looks to be a précis of the book by the authors: they are credited on the byline. There's a proper review in the Kaleej Times [32]. —rybec 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Babylon series (Imogen Edwards-Jones). There's a consolidated review in Australian Woman's Day.[33] Brief mention in The Telegraph.[34] Full review in Kaleej Times.[35] In aggregate not enough for a standlone article, but enough for a redirect and merge. Imogen Edwards-Jones wrote a series of 8 "Babylon" books the most popular Hotel Babylon. They should be combined to a series article. If any book gets too long, split off to a standalone. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Making a new merge article and placing the Babylon series into it does not sound like a bad idea at this point. It will reduce the sparse coverage and strengthen content in the presence of others. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(nominator) A merge and redirect seems best to me as well. —rybec 20:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was was speedy delete as the article makes no credible claim of signifance. Non-admin closure. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mamoun

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

I declined a speedy on this because problems with the article are not unambiguous. However, it lacks context or clarity of significance, in my opinion, so I'm placing it for discussion. Tóraí (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources on this person. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to GNU. Sandstein 06:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Enterprise

AfDs for this article:

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

The articles cannot be attributed to reliable sources: The website is unreachable, the source code repository is empty, there are some old packages giving clear evidence that the project never supported the features mentioned in the article or various comparison pages (Comparison of accounting software, Comparison of CRM systems, List of ERP software packages). The artice fails to meet the relevant notability guideline: The mailing list had no announcement since 2009.--Huskytreiber (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End rationale, begin discussion.

Comment - I fixed up the nomination for Huskytreiber (talk · contribs), although it still looks quite unorthodox; I won't be watching so ping me if needed. Ansh6 6 6 20:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found mentions on Heise.de and Salon.com which may be enough to establish notability. Notability isn't temporary, but this project does indeed seem dead. So, maybe it should simply be merged into the main GNU article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY and every one is a dead link. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Likely best option here given it won't meet N and while notability is not temporary, it is the questioned implimentation and lack of verifiability that prompts merge. And for dead links, try Archive.org. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People, the links above to find sources are there for a reason. The topic meets WP:GNG, per the sources found by NinjaRobotPirate and because covered in a plethora of other sources. See short but meaningful mentions here and here, a whole academic paper on the GNU Enterprise development and another where included in a comparative analysis. Also let us remember that notability is not temporary and that the current activity status of the software has nothing to do with its notability. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've just mixed up WP:RS with WP:V. I would indeed consider your mentioned sources as reliable, but they nevertheless don't make the article verifiable, because they don't confirm any of the statements of the article. The academic paper deals with the software development model, something not even mentioned in the article. Can you find any reliable source that confirms that GNUe implements a full Enterprise Resource Planning system (as said in the article), or the support of any of the packages mentioned in the article? Can you find any reliable source for the features mentioned in Comparison of accounting software? It's open source software. Can you point me to the source code of the database layer that handles all the databases mentioned in Comparison of CRM systems? Can you find one single screen shot of the features mentioned in Comparison of accounting software? The article on Heise.de even contradicts the majority of the statements in the article by saying" "GNU Enterprise to date is only a (for the practicable use hardly usable) development environment for business applications" (translated from German). And the funniest thing is the citation for "Development status: Active", which is the projects website, unreachable for years. I do not care if the article is delete or not, but you should know, that I have the strong feeling that most of the assertions in the article do not represent facts but only the ambitious dream of one person which never came true (Vaporware). And that should not be part of a Wikipedia article. Huskytreiber (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant for deletion is that the topic is notable -and it clearly is. That the article contains original research and/or unverifiable statements is true but it is something that can be dealt with editing, not deletion, and as such our deletion policy asks us to not delete, explicitly. AfD is not for cleanup. I may agree with your assessment of issues within the article, but this just means it can be stubified and then rewritten following the sources. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Per the sources found by Cyclopia. Notability is not temporary, and AFD is not for article improvement. If it's covered in WP:RS, then it passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livitup (talk • contribs)
Merge to GNU. There is every sign that this is a dead project that never delivered anything substantial. The sources found by NinjaRobotPirate are both passing mentions, not enough to meet WP:N. The Salon article, especially, only mentions in passing that some other piece of software it is discussing may one day form part of GNUe. The sources found be Cyclopia are better but still mostly passing mentions. Of the two substantial published papers, the Elliot and Scacchi paper is concerned with the culture of developers and is using GNUe as a case study. It is not really telling us anything about GNUe itself, only verifying that there was active development in 2003. The Erbizzoni et al. paper is behind a paywall and I would be very reluctant to accept for notability on the basis of what it says in the abstract (but would take on good faith comments from anyone who has read it). Spinning Spark 13:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GNU. There is a clear lack of "Significant coverage" according to WP:GNG of the project itself or its outcomes. Notability may not be temporary, but it is neither for things that never really got going enough to rise into notability. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks meaningful coverage to establish notability. With the exception of the Erbizzoni, et al, article which I cannot review, all mentions are either in passing, only noting that the software exists, or otherwise not about GNU Enterprise (such as using it as a case study for something else.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GNU. There are reliable sources but the coverage is not of sufficient depth to justify a separate article. - Mr X 01:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Time: Charity Anthology

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

Was nominated for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertisement. I declined because it is not unambiguous IMO but certainly has a very strong whiff.

Adds: Another by the same editor: After Dark: Charity Anthology with the same issues.

Tóraí (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable anthology by a collection of non-notable authors, published by a non-notable publisher. The spammy tone could be managed, if there were a reason to retain this article. The fact that the original editor claims on her user page to be a "marketer and PR girl at a publishing press" certainly makes the whiff of promotion stronger. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My delete !vote applies equally to both articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to tag it as a speedy since it's pretty promotional in tone and intent, as all it's missing is the price tag. Either way, these are decidedly non-notable and both should be deleted. I note that the original editor has been warned against using Wikipedia for spam purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional yes, but not a speediable promotion. Fails N. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as promotional. Fiddle Faddle 15:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this, per WP:IAR or whatever might be appropriate. The nominator and the last delete-voter are each others' socks, and in my judgment this AfD would have been concluded very differently had it not been for the final "delete". One may accept DGG's argument or not, but an argument it is. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture

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

This article is an indiscriminate list of trivia and Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information. It doesn't offer any insight into Eliot's poem The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Nominated for deletion per WP:IPC, WP:ROC and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:IPCEXAMPLES WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA: (A) trivia articles should be avoided (B) this is a collection of trivia that is not important to the T.S. Eliot article or the Prufrock article, and offers no substantive insight into those topics (C) the material isn't substantive enough to include or integrate into either of those articles, (D) "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". (E) There is no context, and it's largely a list of superficial "hey, someone wanted to look smart, so they quoted Eliot. nothing more, just a quote." --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC) ColonelHenry (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as nom. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the excellent and well-argued nominating statement. Can't add anything to the comprehensive nomination. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this minute there is time for decisions and revisions which a minute will not reverse. (That is, as quite adeptly argued above, delete.) Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: - Best delete vote ever. ;-) --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly encyclopedic. It's just a random collection of pop culture references better suited to TV Tropes than Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Only logical decision here. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly.

These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. Not for lack of trying. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonencyclopedic listcruft. Hierophant443 (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Darius

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable author. None of the "references" demonstrate that the subject meets the relevant guidelines - WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO - they merely confirm that the book exists. ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. No sources or book review. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've removed all of the merchant links on the article, but I was unable to find any sources to show that this author meets notability guidelines. There is a possibility that foreign language sources exist, but my observations have usually shown that if an author is notable in FL sources there is usually at least one reliable source in the English language, either in-depth or brief/trivial. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Fields

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

Fails WP:GNG, no notability separate from Pretty Little Liars. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Pretty Little Liars characters. Received significant coverage from E! Online, E! Online again, and the Washington Blade. The character's sexuality seems to have caused some degree of controversy and acclaim, but I'm not sure there's a whole lot to say about it except what I just said. Nonetheless, she does seem to be quite a bit more notable than the average fictional character brought to AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those. The first and last seem to me more about the actress than the character. This time I think a merge is also appropriate since there is some coverage, but it's relatively related to the show and not really the character herself. But I'll leave that to other people to decide. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who they're about does seem somewhat debatable. I'm fine with a merge, too. However, I think we've at least got some potential to add out-of-universe information to this article, which is what I usually look for. Right now, the article is just a collection of plot-lines, but we could probably add a section that discusses the real-world impact of her sexuality. My biggest issue is that there just isn't all that much to say, unlike the enduring influence of someone like Superman, Han Solo, or James Bond. Nobody is going to write scholarly essays on Pretty Little Liars characters, but they might mention her in a discussion of how lesbians are portrayed/received on television. So I'm optimistic about this article, even if it does seem like worthless fancruft currently. Of course, if you'd asked me yesterday if I'd be voting to keep Pretty Little Liars characters yesterday... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points. Let's see what other people have to say. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG, The character's well notable for Pretty Little Liars as well as the controversy.

-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satyabrat Sinha

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested speedy deletion (of sorts). An article with the same name was deleted on 14 March 2013. I'm not sure that this person meets WP:ACADEMIC yet, having completed a PhD in 2009, and become an assistant professor in 2012 according to the staff profile at Presidency University. The general impression II get is that his work has not yet made a major impact, although this might change. In news, there are two hits (one for a blog article in the NY Times and one mention in a Deutsche Welle article). In books, he is apparently mentioned in about 18 "books" (allowing for several other people of the same name), but google searches within some of those fail to show any mention. Green Giant (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. BLP revived 8 months after unanimous delete. Cites in Google scholar are still negligible. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Not significantly different from the version deleted after the previous AfD. And no obvious reason for a change in notability has surfaced. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find anything in a couple broad commercial databases. The "Reviews" listed are by Sinha, not about Sinha, confused me at first. Need sources about Sinha. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 and salt. Too soon, wait another 10 years. --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhesh pai

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

Unsourced biography of an apparently "professional dancer". Article creator Rads786 is a single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage, mainly youtube videos. Why is he considered a sportsman?204.126.132.231 (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Even if this isn't a "tit-for-tat nomination", the simple fact of the matter is that if an article closely related to an article under dispute and created by one of the disputers is AfD'd by the other disputer, the inevitable result will be far more heat than light. Therefore, even if we AGF and say this doesn't fit speedy keep criterion 2D, it does fit WP:IAR. User:Sport and politics and User:MRSC are encouraged to resolve their dispute over Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets/Mayor of Tower Hamlets first, then, once that is done, if this isn't merged and it's still believed to not be a suitable list, it can be renominated for deletion. There is no deadline, and the encyclopedia won't collapse into a black hole if this sits for awhile while a deep breath is taken, everyone has a nice cup of tea and a sit down, and things are hashed out in a civil and respectful fashion that results in a clear WP:CONSENSUS. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Tower Hamlets

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

Wikipeidia is not a repository for lists and the post itself the list is created for is not notable enough to have a separate Wikiepdia article of its own. Wikiepdia is not for creating articles just for the sake of it, which this this article is. If individual holders of the Office are notable then that should be included in the main Tower Hamlets page and a separate page is wholly unneeded. The guidance which should be followed when creating lists can be found here and this list falls foul of not being notable and should be deleted. Sport and politics (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources, including those that are independent of the subject. MRSC (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply The office which is and of itself not notable, therefor makes a list of holders of that office is not notable. It is just a list for the sake of it. It clearly fails WP:GNG as opposed to meeting them. indiviual office holders if they are notable should have their own page and the notable people should be included in the main Tower Hamlets page a separate page clearly fails notability. Sport and politics (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The office appears to be notable, passing the WP:GNG clearly, which makes a list of its holders notable as well. This could be converted into an article about the office, with a list as a section, or both an article and a list could exist. That is a question ofm editorial judgement, and should not be a matter for AfD. DES ^(talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment I think there may be misunderstanding this article is only for the council appointed office holder which has only been in existence since 1995 not the post elected by the public which has been in existence sine 2010. Sport and politics (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it well er notable that this AfD nomination occurred just after a move of a closely related page to which the nominator objected. ~~A bit of forum-shopping perhaps?~~ DES ^(talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is part of a POV fork and should be deleted as it is not a notable subject to warrant an article. Sod all to do with when the page created remember always WP:AGF. I don't really think one local newspaper demonstartes the notabilitiy of the post either more just the notability of its reporting on council business and the Council itself being used as a source is not a demonstration of wider notability. Currently (at the time of writing) seven of the sources are Tower Hamlets council itself 2 sources are the London Gazette and are for Mayors before the current Borough of Tower Hamlets was established in 1995 One is a local government directory which the equivalent of a phone book for local government and the only other source is one local newspaper who appears to be focusing more on the person taking up the office than the office itself. It appears in no doubt that the office exists but the sources do not establish any notability of the office. All the sources do is say this person held this office they give no reason as to why this office is a notable office which warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 19:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Blackman

AfDs for this article:

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

As was the case seventeen months ago, Mr. Blackman has not yet played for Chelsea's senior squad, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Minor youth footballer who has not accomplished anything garnering significant coverage yet. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he actually meets NFOOTY.204.126.132.231 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT - fails WP:GNG and the WP:NFOOTBALL notability guideline. - tucoxn\^talk 02:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't appeared in a fully pro league yet or received significant coverage, which means it fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not salt -- He is certainly not notable yet, but may be one day. The artile is this TOOSOON. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haakon Faste

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

Originally deleted as an uncontested PROD, and restored per a WP:REFUND request. Still doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:PROF or the more general WP:BIO guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible cites in GS. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Way too soon. Doesn't even come close to meeting WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Joire

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

Fails notability guidelines. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep per WP:BARE. She was an important editor and content provider at Engadget, and a "well respected tech blogger" [36]. While it's difficult to find a lot of mainstream media about her, I think there's enough on blogs and tech websites to create a decent article. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Bearian. The "well respected tech blogger" citation is just someones comment on an interview video page (that doesn't even seem to involve the subject) and would be all considerations fail as a credible source. Further, all notability of the subject hinges on their employement by notable companies. I see no stand alone notability and am left wanting to label this article as a case of WP: Hole Sulfurboy (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admitted, the stub is crappy. I can't rescue every article here. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....Which is why I nominated it for deletion. WP:WSIC Sulfurboy (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. Well, I've had my say. Worse comes to worse, it can always be re-created when and if she becomes more notable. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think being the public face of Pebble implies notability. MRSC (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think that being the chief spokesman for a company implies notability in any encyclopedic sense. Certainly there do ot sem to abe any referencesi n the article showing it. The importance of her earlier work does not seem to be demonstrated. I notice the complete absence of reliable third party references. And although she may describe her sexual orientation on her blog, it is not encyclopedic content unless it has some relationship to her notability or has been the subject of significant third party comment. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Her reviews are being picked up and used in news reports, such as [37], [38] and [39] —Anne Delong (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkinhead (rapper)

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

Musician fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO & WP:GNG through non-trivial coverage in reliable sources: [40][41][42][43]. — sparklism ^hey! 15:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sparklism.LM2000 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Johnson, Sr.

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

Seems reasonably un-notable, the only sources regarding this person are his obituary. Dying doesn't seem to be something that makes a person notable. Frumpylittlefellow (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not his death that made him notable, but rather his many accomplishments in fighting against political corruption in the labor movement and New York City politics. Hint: the New York Times does not run 14 paragraph obituaries with two photographs about non-notable people. His extremely common name makes separating the wheat from the chaff challenging when searching on Google, but I am highly confident that many additional sources can be found, in addition to the three already in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The New York Times published at least six articles in the 1951-1953 time period discussing his work to reform the International Longshore Association. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am under the impression that the NYT published the obituary because they considered the deceased to be worthy of notice on account of events which took place during his life. James500 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is generally held that an obituary in a major newspaper such as the NYT easily meets our notability bar. Obituaries are given to people because they deserve them, not just because they die. Otherwise everybody would have an obituary! So in what way is it only his dying that's notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recharge (magazine)

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines - ie link to main info is by the company paid to launch/promote in 2013 ie http://garciamedia.com/blog/articles/precharge_the_renewable_energy_journal_gets_renewed_p quote: It is the third project launch for Garcia Media in 2013.

Other links were from primary sources, or blogs of employees. Remainder are a non-notable industry awards, and an association with a former CEO of a notable organisation, European Wind Energy Association, plus mentions of publications (single issue?) made for trade fairs -( NB have remove all primary and associated sources except garcia media info)

I couldn't find anything to show this new magazine is notable, though a web search is complicated by its common name. Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 05:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 07:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel L. Young

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

Promotional article filled with minutiae and non-independent sources. Subject fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Note, if you disagree, please specify which specific, numbered, criteria under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR you think make the subject notable. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews in reliable sources.

Adams, Angel. "ADHD Grown Up. A Guide to Adolescent and Adult ADHD by Joel Young". Journal of Family Therapy, Vol. 30, No. 1, February 2008
"ADHD grown up; a guide to adolescent and adult ADHD", SciTech Book News, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2007
Sickel. "ADHD Grown Up: A Guide to Adolescent and Adult ADHD", Psychiatric Services January 1, 2008; Vol 59, No. 1; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.59.1.123
Diana Pederson. "Review - ADHD Grown Up", Metapsychology, January 8, 2008; Volume 12, Issue 2
McCabe, Marcia. "Why don't you grow up?" PsycCRITIQUES, Vol 52(46), 2007

--Green Cardamom (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tiny cites in a highly cited field (biomed). A handful of reviews. Does not cross the high bar in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

"many books are published each year, only a small fraction of them are reviewed".[44] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As pointed out by Green Cardamon, this person appears to meet the threshold of notability. However, the article is promotional and non-neutral. My !vote is weak, and I am open to a good argument to the contrary. The COI is highly disturbing, however, I don't believe that COI alone is a proper reason for deletion. Changing to Delete. Convinced by subsequent arguments. This one is too much of a disaster to be salvaged. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He might just be notable as WP:A?UTHOR, but the article is so promotional that the only practical thing is to start over. The combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is a good reason for deletion--we have enough to do improving the articles on really important subjects, rather than by rewriting these to make them acceptable/ . DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A point that is applicable outside BLPs too. Wikipedia has developed to a high degree of maturity and there is plenty of good material in its several million articles. There is now not the need for editors to devote large amounts of esoteric research to bringing articles about insignificant topics up to par. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Weak delete unless someone cares enough to clear the promotional material and write a properly neutral article about the subject before the close of the AfD (I certainly don't) and then continue policing it for recurring COI problems afterwards. Borderline G11 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLOWITUP, DGG and WP:ADVERT .This article is clearly a paid advertisement and promotion for his work with the biography acting as nothing but a WP:COATRACK done by a paid editor across sock accounts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow! Rarely seen such an article. Professionally done, I have to admit. If you don't look closer, you might actually think that this guy is a giant in his field. We should keep this gem somewhere, as it is a beautiful example of what paid advocacy editing can mean for WP! Dr. Young, unfortunately, doesn't even come close to meeting WP:ACADEMIC. As noted above, he might squeak by on WP:AUTHOR, but this article is an irredeemable load of spam, spam, with spam (indeed borderline G11, as David Eppstein said). --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. As far as his professional qualifications, he appears to be a run-of-the-mill psychiatrist who has given his practice a fancy name to make it sound like an important "behavioral center". As far as WP:ACADEMIC goes he doesn't come close. As far as WP:AUTHOR goes, aside from Psychiatric Services I am not impressed with the journals/magazines that chose to review his book; it doesn't exactly sound like it has rocked the field or flown off the shelves. It was put out by a mainstream publisher, but I don't feel it has made him notable as WP defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

João Rodrigo Silva Santos

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

Non-notable footballer, who fails WP:GNG and also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. JMHamo (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Minor footballer, his death has received a little bit of coverage purely because of its nature, but that is not notable either. Giant Snowman 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now shows to meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this guy played for Östers IF, though I'm unable to verify whether he played any matches in Allsvenskan, a fully pro league, which would mean the subject passes WP:NFOOTY. I would suggest the nominator reads WP:RAPID, afterall this biography is about a breaking news event, and if this was nominated for deletion more than five hours after it was created, maybe we would have known if the subject was notable or not. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mentoz86: - Östers IF have only spent 1 season in the Allsvenskan recently (2006), do you have any idea if he was even signed with them in that season, let alone if he played? Basially here we have a potential claim to notability, but one which is unverifiable. How is that notable in any way, shape or form? "He may be notable but I can't prove it" - um okay then! Giant Snowman 16:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me rephrase that: this guy was contracted to Östers IF when the club played in Allsvenskan in 2003, but I'm unable to verify whether he actually played any matches in Allsvenskan. But I doubt that all of the Scandinavia media would call him "former Allsvenskan player" if he didn't play any matches in Allsvenskan. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But even if he has played in the Allsvenskan, has he received "significant coverage" in Brazil, Scandinavia, or eslewhere? Giant Snowman 17:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He played six matches and scored one goal for Öster in Allsvenskan in 2003, according to svenskfotboll.se -77.222.192.193 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - technical NFOOTY pass. Agree with GS, unlikely there is much significant coverage in footballing terms, but add what there is to his recent grisly murder and there is a case for GNG. Would be interested to see what additional sources can be provided and also prepared to change my view should there be little coverage on his death. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - his death has already been reported in the Guardian. not enough on its own for GNG by any means, but if additional sources can be found to show his death received wider international coverage, added to his NFOOTY pass I would remain happy to keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because of his professional appearances. Spiderone 13:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per NFOOTY but it's pretty tenuous. Maybe see how it looks in a month or so, perhaps it will satisfy GNG by then. It can always be reviewed later. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G8 by Tóraí. Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OC Public Libraries

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

redirect needs to be deleted since original article was deleted on 25Oct2013

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Technically, this is the wrong venue -- redirects go to WP:RFD, not AFD. But in this case, it's an uncontroversial candidate for speedy deletion criterion G8 (red-linked redirect), and I've so tagged it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gallow

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

Notability: All the works are self published. The only independent source listed is when Huffington Post show a cover of one of his stories in a short article on free zombie stories from Wattpad (which is an online community for users to post articles, stories, and poems). A search doesn't show up any independent sources. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 15:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self published author with one book. Does not meet minimum WP:AUTHOR guideline of multiple book reviews in reliable sources (Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, etc). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Aguinaldo College ROTC

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

This article fails notability for organizations. It has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; it has not even seen trivial coverage. NoyPiOka (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Philippines), merging any relevant content as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Examining the two articles, I see nothing mergable, and there's no reason to refer from the name of an individual university's department of something to the general topic. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to merge to the ROTC article, as this article is only about the ROTC program of one school. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Normal University – Agusan del Sur Army ROTC

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

This article fails notability for organizations. Tt has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; it has not even seen trivial coverage. NoyPiOka (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Philippines), merging any relevant content as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no reason to redirect, as there is no mergable content. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to merge to the ROTC article, as this article is only about the ROTC program of one school. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to Cinema of West Bengal. Spinning Spark 12:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Bengal

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

There is no precedent of classifying film industries by an undefined geographic area. The region "Bengal" has varied over centuries, this article talks about the pre-1947 region Bengal Presidency which comprises of the present day West Bengal and Bangladesh, both countries having separate film industries "Tollywood" and "Dallywood" respectively (equivalent wikipedia articles being Cinema of West Bengal and Cinema of Bangladesh). Solomon 7968 15:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think more needs to be taken into account than just this article to clean up what's going on here, because the Template:Cinema of Bengal complicates matters (it's really about the Cinema of West Bengal). So, I'd suggest doing the following: rename the template to Template:Cinema of West Bengal (unpiping the link in the title bar). Then, convert this page to a disambiguation between Cinema of West Bengal and Cinema of Bangladesh. redirect this article to Cinema of West Bengal and include a hatlink to Cinema of Bangladesh for the pre-partition film history of Dhaka. I considered the idea that the current article might need to be retained for pre-partition history, but at least on cursory inspection, it seems that everything before 1947 fits nicely into the article for one industry or the other. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two contemporary film industries potentially share more than geographical proximity. They share a common language and pre-partition history. But I'll let editors with better knowledge of the subject and sources to weigh in before deciding whether this is enough justification to have a separate Cinema of Bengal article. Are there sources that cover the two industries (or Bengali language cinema) as one? Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare ~~Ziaur Rahman apparently banned~~ Releasing of Indian films (Hindi & Bengali) in Bangladesh (except joint Indo-Bangladesh production) (see refs) is banned since 1972. The only recent joint production I am aware of is Moner Manush but the film article does not mention that. For the common language, the usual convention I think is not to group film Industries by language. For example Cinema of Austria and Cinema of Germany are separate articles although they share common language. Solomon 7968 16:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian films banned again in Bangladesh". Apr 27 2010. The Indian Express.
"Bangladesh retains Bollywood ban after protests". Apr 27 2010. The Guardian.

Typically, films-by-language are handled solely by category (Category:German-language films, for the above example). And indeed, we have Category:Bengali-language films here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are good points. A one-off, or even a few, joint productions alone wouldn't justify a "Cinema of X+Y" article. And common language may or may not suffice. Basically as I see it, if there are good sources analyzing the two cinemas collectively, than we should have an article, else we should abstain from an on-wikipedia synthesis. For now, I'll sit back and listen to other comments, and revisit this afd in a few days. Abecedare (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's some articles on cinema in other Indian languages, e.g. Malayalam cinema, Gujarati cinema, and other articles on regional cinema which may be in a particular language, e.g. Cinema of Andhra Pradesh which is "also known as Telugu cinema". So an article on film either in a language or in an Indian state would fit with existing patterns. However, Cinema of West Bengal already exists, so I don't see much point in keeping this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapeninsula Unlike the other states of India Punjab and Bengal are unique because they were partitioned in 1947. So Cinema of Bengal≠Cinema of West Bengal. Solomon 7968 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if it makes sense to merge the pre-partition material into the separate articles (and I don't know whether or not it does), we would want to keep (or at any rate not delete) this article for attribution. These editorial matters should be left for the editors of the various articles to sort out. The ancient history of Bengal need not concern us here. There is nothing in this article that requires the AfD axe to be swung. Thincat (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat "Bengal" is an undefined place. This article talks about the British creation Bengal Presidency because back in "ancient history" there was no Cinema. For the "editorial matters should be left for the editors of the various articles to sort out", I am afraid that I don't understand that. Since you are not familiar this topic, just think about Cinema of Anglosphere or Cinema of Russosphere which will obviously be deleted as WP:SYNTHESIS. Solomon 7968 16:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you and your colleagues are sure that everything is covered satisfactorily in Cinema of West Bengal and Cinema of Bangladesh and nothing needs moving from Cinema of Bengal, the last could be deleted. But if anything is moved from Cinema of Bengal that requires attribution for copyright you will have to take one of several actions, the easiest of which is to convert it into a disambiguation page (which seems a good idea) or a redirect. Delete is not a good idea unless there really is nothing at all worthwhile that is not recorded elsewhere. Excuse me, I must just rush off now and read the article about the region of Bengal before it gets deleted :-) Thincat (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cinema of West Bengal. I looked for sources covering the "two cinemas" comprehensively and the best source that I could find is Bengali Cinema: 'An Other Nation', Sharmistha Gooptu, Routledge, whose central thesis is defining/discussing Bengali vs pan-Indian/Hindi cinema and which argues against cinema analysis through the lens of "national cinemas". However even this work says "While the provincial towns of East Bengal provided a market for films produced in Calcutta, there was as such no development of the film industry there until after the country's independence from colonial rule in 1947" and covers the cinema of East Bengal/East Pakistan/Bangladesh only perfunctorily. Several other sources also use "Cinema of Bengal/Bengali Cinema" to refer exclusively to the Calcutta centered film-industry in West Bengal, and the use of the term to cover the amalgam of West Bengal and Bangladesh based cinemas appears to be on-wiki synthesis. Note that while User:Squeamish Ossifrage proposal to convert the page into a disambiguation page for West Bengal/Bangladesh cinema appeals to my sense of fairness I didn't find any reference that refers to the latter as such. So my first preference is a redirect to Cinema of West Bengal but can support a disamb page as the second-best option. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pretty much the only reason I had to lobby for disambiguation was the small amount of pre-partition cinema history in Dhaka (such as Sukumari), which was literally "cinema of Bengal" at the time. Upon reflection, there's a clear primary topic here, though, so I think a hatlink is the right approach rather than disambiguation, especially since few if any sources are explicit about that connection (the best we get from Sharmistha Gooptu is a footnote). I've revised my opinion above accordingly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The suggestions for having a redirect strike me as very reasonable and nothing I have said should be taken as an objection to that happening. Thincat (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or make disambiguation page - I fail to understand the reason behind redirecting the article to Cinema of West Bengal as proposed by some editors here, since the cinemas produced in Bangladesh are mostly in Bengali language and the Bangladeshi cinemas are also referred to as "Bangla cinema" or "Bengali cinema", in fact, a google search on "Bangla cinema" shows results mostly referring to Bangladeshi cinema. Moreover, [45], [46] these 2 books also refer Bangladeshi cinema as "Bangla cinema".--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmzayeem Generally films are defined by nationality (not language). See my German-Austrian point above. Solomon 7968 19:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's why I also proposed to make it a disambiguation page referring to both Cinema of Bangladesh and Cinema of West Bengal, but redirecting the article to Cinema of West Bengal seems to be absurd to me, as it refers to both film industries. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cinema of West Bengal and create a hatnote to Cinema of Bangladesh. The pre-partition history can be included at those two articles, and if it becomes substantial at some point an article split can be considered if and when. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This may seem, on the surface, to be consensus for keeping, but the points raised by the nominator give me enough pause to abstain from finding a consensus to keep; I instead find no consensus to delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

XAudio2

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

Apparently not notable: both existing references are Microsoft authored, subject not found in independent reliable sources, except descriptions of bugs and workarounds Pointillist (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The XAudo2 article may be a stub, but it is notable as it's being used on a lot of software of games as a plug in. As a matter of fact, it is used in emulators like VisualBoyAdvance-M and it is superior to other solutions. I was looking up this software when I found the AFD going on. Primary sources to Microsoft does not indicate deleatiblity, although discouraged, isn't delete worthy. As other Microsoft API's have articles, I can't find any reason this one doesn't. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 01:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "books" link above finds several independent reliable sources, one of which is now in the article. And, as Dark Mistress points out, being a major Microsoft API does have a strong presumption of notability. -- 101.119.14.241 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the article - Pointillist (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article text doesn't include any claim to notability.
AFAICS the brief mentions in Programming 2D Games (list) and Ultimate Game Programming with DirectX (list) don't confer notability, because they only mention the API in passing, not as a significant initiative.
Many (possibly most) officially published sources that deal with technology aren't reliable sources. They are commercially parasites whose business model is to reprint press releases or explain technology stacks that are being promoted by a major player. Such sources aren't independent because being neutral is expensive and anyway very few people want them to be (there's a much larger market for a deep-but-partisan book about Knockout than there is for a shallow-but-neutral title that compares all front-end frameworks). Nor are they reliable, because they often just repeat what has been published by the vendor, rather than independently investigating what the vendor claims.

Comments on the !votes above - Pointillist (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that if anything has a Microsoft marketing label is automatically enjoys encyclopedic notability. Indeed I raised this four months ago at WikiProject Windows. So far no-one has replied to that, so we should apply the usual notability criteria.
The statement by Dark Mistress (who has made 65 article edits so far on enwiki) that "As a matter of fact, it is used in emulators like VisualBoyAdvance-M and it is superior to other solutions." requires a source for each claim.
The reasoning by 101.119.14.241 (who has made 4 article edits so far on enwiki) that "As other Microsoft API's have articles" is a discredited Other stuff argument. As it says there: Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Well, they'll have to go, too.

Sorry, that's inaccurate. As anyone can see by reading this page, the IP comments were "The books link above finds several independent reliable sources" and "being a major Microsoft API does have a strong presumption of notability" -- both of which are true statements. The first can be easily checked; the second reflects the fact that the Microsoft platforms are (for good or ill) the dominant ones. Obscure APIs that nobody uses or refers to should not have articles, but major ones should. -- 101.119.15.78 (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I accidentally attributed a Dark Mistress statement to the IP. Sorry about that - Pointillist (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that XAudio2 is a "major" API isn't borne out by the sources I checked. This claim should be sourced in the article. - Pointillist (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book Ultimate Game Programming with DirectX discusses XAudio2 in depth on pages 283-289, more than a passing mention. There is an 8-part tutorial on Xaudio2 at win32developer.com. I do not share the nom's deep cynicism of the trade press and regard both of these as independent reliable sources. In addition, there are independent reliable sources, in less depth, that could also be useful, such as the book Professional XNA Programming: Building Games for Xbox 360 and Windows with XNA Game Studio 2.0, which has about half a page on that discusses it and the two articles at at Maximum PC and Ars Technica which cover the XAudio2 debut. The existence of multiple in-depth reliable sources shows notability, per WP:GNG. While the article could be developed in greater depth, it has no major problems. In particular, the article does assert the notability of XAudio2 as the successor to DirectSound. I don't see any evidence of promotion or non-neutrality in the article. The article has no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: I don't have that source book, but if the XAudio2 content is the same as this version at ultimategameprogramming.com I don't agree that it demonstrates notability. It's just a brief intro followed by pages of source code, much of it copied directly from MSDN documentation (e.g. the Voices section starts with code copied from IXAudio2::CreateMasteringVoice method). The Ars Technica source is a mention in passing (they even say that XAudio2 was overshadowed by the DirectX 10.1 announcement). The Maximum PC item is a blog post summarizing Microsoft's announcement. Mark, I'm not cynical about the reasons people write and buy technical books: my desk is surrounded by O'Reilly, Manning, Apress, Springer etc titles written by people who have specialized in their area. I just don't kid myself that they are neutral. It's simple: if you've spent two years understanding MongoDB or SharePoint, you've already chosen your platform and – at least in terms of your experience and mental bandwidth – rejected the alternatives. I entirely understand that if you are a Windows/XBox games developer then the sound API is really important to you. But if I can't find XAudio2 discussion by searching any major technology title (I tried drdobbs.com, ieeexplore.ieee.org, infoq.com, sdtimes.com, computer.org, computerworld.com, pcmag.com, zdnet.com), then it isn't notable. - Pointillist (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly find articles on ieeexplore.ieee.org -- for some researchers, use of the low-level sound API is essential. -- 101.119.14.67 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note: using advanced search (article text as well as metadata) returned this and this. But I don't have an IEEE login and this week I won't be visiting a library that has. Can anyone check those articles to see whether the mentions are significant? - Pointillist (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I may buy the $31.00 article... I'm not sure if I can actually disclose the information however. Such disclosures would almost certainly bear a non-disclosure agreement... I'll talk to my grandmother to see if I can buy it, but I can't guarantee it. If I do however, I would like to know if I can disclose it. I have a feeling I almost certainly can't, but I can verify it. It's in a PDF files, and I don't know if it's got DRM attached to it or not, ether way we're looking at serious breach of contract. If anyone has time to look at the strings attached, reply later. If I do buy it, I'll let you know. Even members have to pay $13.00, but since I'm not, I pay full price. Maybe the government of US has them for free, I doubt it. I'll let you know later in a couple of days to see if I can buy it, K? --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 19:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to both of these articles. For Aural Proxies and Directionally-Varying Reverberation for Interactive Sound Propagation in Virtual Environments, Xaudio2 is mentioned in the implementation section, but only in one sentence. For Rendering Sound and Images Together, Xaudio2 is again only mentioned as one of several game audio API. Interesting articles, but I'm afraid that neither of these sources count as in-depth. --Mark viking (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: Thanks very much for checking. @Dark Mistress: Most college/uni libraries have access to that sort of material for free. It won't necessarily be obvious – you might need to ask your librarian. Actually, I could have read them but only when I'm on campus at my old university, I don't have the right remote access right now. Unfortunately there are far fewer independent computing/development magazines around compared with 15–20 years ago, so it is harder to find proper references for more recent technologies. I did check in good faith: I'm usually an "inclusionist"! - Pointillist (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: Just to confirm: are you still !voting to keep? - Pointillist (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Mark viking (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would point out that, apart from the nom, all the !votes here are "keep." -- 101.119.14.206 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but is it relevant? It is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of !votes. Anyway, if you want to use numeric measures only two of us can demonstrate significant Wikipedia experience: Mark viking has made 2842 article edits, I've made 5365, including comprehensively sourcing and extending articles like Bed management and Kilburn Priory to save them at AfD. - Pointillist (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I've been a Wikipedia IP-editor for several years. And my experience tells me: no closing admin is going to call three "keeps" a consensus to delete. -- 13:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.15.86 (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 delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NAZA TTDI Mosque

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

Delete does not appear to be a notable building [[47]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 05:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't even say why this building may be notable. FurrySings (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOGI Awards

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

All references provided seem to be connected to the subject and no widespread coverage [[48]]. At most this should be a redirect to the organization that awards them but I'm not seeing how it passes WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOGIs are to the diving world what Oscars and Emmys are to the motion picture and television industries. There are already Wikipedia pages relative to those awards as well as others for music, etc. (For examples see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscars and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy). The NOGI is now in its 53rd year and merits one too. If you look at how many NOGI honorees are already subjects of Wikipedia articles and already mention their NOGI award on their page, you will see why this page is needed. And, if you read through you will see that the information is not simply copied and does not violate copyright. Although the list of the honorees contains the same information that can be found on the Academy of Underwater Arts & Sciences website, it is presented in a different and far more useful way, and it links to many of the honorees who have Wikipedia pages about them. I suspect others can add a great deal to this page and I highly encourage them to do so. The 53rd Annual Awards Gala is to be held in Orlando on November 7, 2013 and there will be international news coverage, perhaps some of that coverage will help strengthen this page. RebaLee74 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This source demonstrates some of what new User:RebaLee74 states above. A reasonable search turns up this and this. I'm satisfied this page covers a significant award ceremony associated with a narrow but recognized field. I'd think that lots of offline sources could be produced, the awards being presented for 50+ years. BusterD (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, Oscar of the diving world and some of the most important oceanographers, water-centric artists (i.e. Wyland), and under water filmmakers have won awards. Might have to be a stub, but it passes our general notability guidelines if you do your digging. SarahStierch (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Staff appreciation

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

Article is written as a how-to essay. Only sources cited are two subpages of a single website, which requires registration. Overall subject might be incorporated into a small subsection of Human resources management article; but there's no sourced content in this article that'd justify a merge recommendation. Ammodramus (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blog-like how-to. Work motivation, among others, covers this in a far more encyclopedic manner. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Seems to me like a pretty clear-cut example of someone using Wikipedia to host a personal essay. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. More of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of national football teams by highest FIFA ranking

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was "There is no need for an entirely separate table (and article) for this subject." PROD was removed with the rationale "Page details topic not individually represented elsewhere. Without this page individual teams have to be sourced to their own page, proving both inconvenient and resulting in comparisons being unable to be drawn between historical team performance." The counter-argument is, of course, that Wikipedia is not a stats book. Comparing national teams by their highest FIFA World Rankings position is a very good example of a stat that should not be represented on a separate page. The best alternative would be to revamp the List of men's national association football teams and List of women's national association football teams articles so that the appropriate stats can be included in columns of a table, but let's not worry about alternatives until the fate of this article has been determined. – Pee Jay 13:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 13:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS. Interesting? Yes. Encyclopedic? No. Giant Snowman 15:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTSTATS. As mentioned by the nominator, the goals of this page could be covered in an existing page with the right type of formatting but this page doesn't warrant its own article. C 679 11:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails both WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTN. The information could instead be included in List of men's national association football teams or List of women's national association football teams. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Cerutti

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

Non-notable author and professor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail AUTHOR, PROF and GNG - and to be WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.[49]-- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few books, a few cites. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will Rawdon

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

Samwalton9 (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the deletion reason by the nom?204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced biography with no evidence of notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GS, no intl apps nor has any of the teams he has been involved with been involved with been in an FPL. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a youth player in a minor league. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – hasn't played for any significant teams, not notable in his own right. C 679 21:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tanggu Railway Station. One half a sentence was suitable for merging, which I have done. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tangu Railway Station

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

Typo. Should be Tanggu Railway Station. GZWDer (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - A merge to Tanggu Railway Station appears to be in order here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the best solution me thinks. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanggu Railway Station and tag {{R from misspelling}} - nothing to merge. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query Are we sure these refer to the same station? Because "Tangu" says it is on the Jinbin Passenger Railway, an under-construction route, while "Tanggu" says it is on the Jingha Railway... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chinese Wikipedia says both those lines go/will go through that station. _dk (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanggu Railway Station per Whispering Wind. aycliffe^talk 20:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9 Queens

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

Seems to be an advertisement, not neutral 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 11:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a bit promotional, but not too bad. Many of the links are dead, but I can find the articles with a web search. Looks to meet WP:N, WP:ORG is a bit more questionable. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks way too parochial to me. Coverage in local press, but not nationally/globally. If every 'local' initiative of this type had an article, Wikipedia would be flooded with them. Don't forget, there will be similar initiatives all over Europe and further afield also. I have no problem with initiatives that are being rolled out and supported on a national basis, as they should have articles in the chess press, national newspapers etc. However, my impression so far is that these sources don't offer enough gravitas to confer notability. Rather than being entirely promotional, per the comments above, I feel that the author is also relying on the high profiles of the individual founders to attempt to strengthen the case for the article. This too, sets the alarm bells ringing. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Brittle heaven - the coverage is all local. And nothing really links to it except Jennifer Shahade. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per User:Brittle heaven. Relevant ~~policy guideline~~ essay is WP:MILL. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Victor Colicchio#Personal life. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dionna Dal Monte

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

Non-notable musician whose only claim to fame is by raising a bit of a kerfuffle over the question of whether she is a neo-Nazi or not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn´t agree more. The page should be deleted. Antifascisti (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. Her attention-starved antics may have caused a brief controversy among bloggers, but she's hardly notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Victor Colicchio#Personal life. All she's known for at this point in time is for her now infamous tattoo. There was a small amount of coverage, but nowhere near enough for this to be considered anything other than WP:ONEEVENT. If she gains any more coverage outside of that point, this article can always be re-created. Until that point, she just hasn't had enough coverage to really be considered notable enough for her own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Żmien L-Ispanjoli

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

Unreferenced substub; as written clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:V. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a couple of references as well as I can at the moment. I may have spare time later today to do more. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The review in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies seems like a reliable source, if we could find one or two more it would be quite satisfactory. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISSA DaCosta Cup Football Competition 2013

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

Non notable school competition. Contested prod with no reason given. Contravenes WP:NSEASONS as this is not a top professional league. Competition is merely a school competition and not even a national one.Also contravenes WP:NOTSTATS due to lack of significant sources prose. Fenix down (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, minor competition. Giant Snowman 09:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to also violate WP:NOTWEBHOST, in addition to the concerns raised above which I agree with. C 679 09:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EP (BrightSide EP)

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

non notable, self released EP by non notable band. noq (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I note that the article now says "EP received positive reviews from various Greek e-magazines and internet radio stations", and provides links to several. Do these seem to confer any notability at all? if not, why not? Was any attempt at WP:BEFORE done? (note: I declined an A9 speedy on the article.) DES ^(talk) 16:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching some of the keywords in the article in Greek did not turn up any results. Some of the reviews may or may not be reliable, but the one hosted on Blogspot clearly isn't. I was unable to find anything in Greek or English pertaining to the band itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But for the one line that claims positive critical reception from vague sources, this would be a strong candidate for CSD A9. Self-published music very rarely passes the minimum standards for notability. Super Mario Man 19:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a self published CD with reviews in two mediocre sources. I don't see this as indicating significant notability for an article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Pesudovs

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

Doesn't appear to be notable (per WP:BIO) - the only reference is a page on his employers website. Orphan. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable within his field. For example he received "The Garland W. Clay Award (established 1978)... presented to the author or authors of the manuscript published in Optometry and Vision Science that has been most widely cited in the world of scientific literature in the preceding five years." Clearly at the top of his field. Plenty of coverage in reliable inependent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think that the Garland Clay award establishes notability (even if one ignores the fact that Pesudov is a member of the editorial board that awards this prize). However, the Web of Science lists plenty of publications that have been cited quite frequently (ignoring any cites to book chapters): four of them have been cited over 90 times (max: 104), total cites over 2400, h-index of 27. This is far beyond what we usually accept as evidence of meeting WP:ACADEMIC#1. The article does indeed need a lot of work, I agree. --Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From what I could find I already considered the man notable and Randykitty's info above topped it all. Yintan 16:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding to the above, there is also a dedicated write-up on him in Clinical and experimental optometry (2010) 93(1). Agricola44 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Silberkraus

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL and fails WP:GNG. Looking at the page, it seem to qualify - ten sources and even a Guardians postage stamp. Well, that postage stamp is a "photo" stamp tribute from a Wikipedian whose talk page shows issues with uploading images.[50] A Google search of Guardians.org[51] for Silberkraus does not bring up any result. Several of the references in the article link to pages that have no independent source material about Silberkraus and I did not find any support for the claim that he is known as one of the founding fathers of modern thermoplastics.[52] This coupled with a 30 October 2013 post at the Help Desk from someone identifying herself to be his daughter,[53] leads to a conclusion that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is invoked. Also, there is not enough source material to overcome WP:GNG. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several of the sources cited in the article only mention Silberkraus in passing; others appear not to mention him at all. Google searches for ("samuel silberkraus" plastic), ("samuel silberkraus" plastics), ("samuel silberkraus" thermoplastic), ("samuel silberkraus" thermoplastics), and ("samuel silberkraus" "santa monica") produce no evidence of significant media coverage. Searching Google Books for ("samuel silberkraus") turns up five hits, all of which appear to be only passing mentions. Searching Google News Archives for ("samuel silberkraus") yields no hits. Seems to be a fairly clear GNG failure here. Ammodramus (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stephen Silberkraus is another family member. He ran for political office in 2012, the same time these articles were created, thus material reason to WP:PUFF importance. Same situation with that article, reliable looking sources that don't mention Silberkraus or in passing. The article looks abandoned no one bothered to update that he lost.[54] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an AfD for Stephen as well. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lexie Lane

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

A blogger, the only coverage I can see about her or her book is in blogs. There are no reliable sources and barely any secondary sources cited here (I started to remove some then realised the size of the problem). The personal info is entirely uncited too. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR criteria. Sionk (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Just another self-promoting blogger. I can't find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry L. Richman

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

A social media expert and publisher who has managed to get profiled on Wikipedia for several years with little basis that I can see. Sources used in the article are not independent or reliable and I can't see any online. If he's been mentioned in the Charlotte Examiner that doesn't amount to general notability. Sionk (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno - he seems more notable as the founder/CEO of Century Publishing than as a social media expert. I'd actually heard of some of the books they've published. Perhaps the article should be about the publishing company? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He would only be notable for the books he has personally authored under WP:AUTHOR, not books his company published. His most popular book appears to be Improving Your Project Management Skills, [55] but I can't find serious book reviews only a dodgy vanity review by "PM World Journal".[56] Similar problem for Project Management Step-By-Step. Usually if authors have book reviews, they'll quote them on the author website or Amazon page - no reviews are quoted. That leaves GNG sources and don't see any. Since there are no special notability rules for business people, founding a company is not considered inherently notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. He seems to be a noteworthy author, since he has personally authored 13 books ( see http://centurypubl.com/Richman_Larry_publications_author.html ), plus articles in professional magazines and journals. He seems to fit with the Notability Guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability He has had coverage in independent sources, quoted in the Salt Lake City newspaper Deseret News. The Google search https://www.google.com/search?q=%22larry+richman%22+site%3Adeseretnews.com&oq=%22larry+richman&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j0l3.4103j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 shows 139 references to him in the Deseret News. Seems notable enough to keep the entry. Rebuilding a huge website like LDS.org is also impressive. -- Bennett908 (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per GNG, coverage in the same news outlet usually counts as a single source. But with that much coverage one has to ask if he has ever been a columnist or worked for Deseret News, have friends or family there or some other connection? In any case it's probably at best one source. Other sources? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. His books seen legitimate. Several were published by AMACOM, one of the world’s largest publishers of business books. See http://www.thefreelibrary.com/netLibrary+and+AMACOM+to+Simultaneously+Release+eBooks+and+Print...-a059610265 and http://www.librarything.com/publisher/258/AMACOM I verified his books at amacombooks.org. Two of his seven books on project management are college texts in their second and third editions.

Here are two examples of published reviews of his books http://projectmanager.com.au/skills/review-improving-project-management-skills-larry-richman/ and http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/book_reviews_3/book2.htm

Richman was recently quoted at length in the article “Entering the world of LDS blogging” in the DeseretNews.com http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865589490/Entering-the-world-of-LDS-blogging.html?pg=all His blog has a monthly readership of 36,000.

He was also a guest speaker at Brigham Young University (https://video.byui.edu/media/Larry+Richman+%22Learning+through+Life's+Trials%22/0_6g3uxzea ) That’s fairly notable.

The bottom line is that his entry has been whittled down over the years so that now it looks pretty lean, but I think he’s substantial enough to not delete the entry. The notability guidelines say that “For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.” So, even if his notability is somewhat unclear, I don’t see that as sufficient reason to delete the entry. In fact, it seams reasonable to re-introduce some of the stuff that has been taken out over the years where it’s from verifiable sources. Bylanrichter (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some other sources: [57] , [58] —Anne Delong (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Green Cardamom. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an author. Some of his books are indeed by one of the most impt publishers in the field, and "Project management step by step " alone is in 1,495 libraries a/c worldcat. Some of the other content does need trimming. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benoit Pleska

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

I'm not sure I see much in the way of independent coverage in reliable sources. I do see a few interviews in some woefully obscure economic papers, but the fact that he receives no coverage even in Ziarul Financiar, the best known Romanian financial newspaper, much less in the mainstream Romanian papers, is rather telling.

What I do see a lot of is promotion. Two accounts have edited the article: AndOnofriesei and AndreeaOnof. The first is a single-purpose account; the second almost one, having added some promotional content to Banca Transilvania as well. And who might Andreea Onofriesei be? Why, an employee of Saatchi & Saatchi... - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoàng Danh Ngọc

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hoang Danh Ngoc

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. He has only played in the non-fully pro V-League. The last afd failed to reach a consensus largely due to a lack of participation. Objections to the last afd asserted that he met WP:GNG, however one source that goes beyond the usual trivia does not constitute significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fenixdown has shown very well that this player is indeed notable. I will vote Keep here, however, I would would recommed someone try to implement all this information into the article because this article does not look like one which passes WP:GNG at all. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails WP:NFOOTY, but appears to pass GNG. I am not a vietnamese speaker, but there does seem to be a reasonable amount of articles out there which focus on him:

There are also a number of other articles specifically headlining this player here and here, although not all are about him.

All of these links come from one Vietnamese news site. I think it is reasonably safe to say that in Vietnam, he appears to be an up and coming footballer, who is also a bit of a character, getting in trouble with the FA on a number of occassions and attracting a fair bit of media coverage. Seems like a pretty safe GNG pass to me. The article needs expanding and addressing by a Vietnamese speaker, not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one website (tinthethao.com.vn) covering a player's on-field antics on a few occasions does not constitute "significant" coverage. Giant Snowman 09:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage has now been demonstrated. Giant Snowman 11:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above is simply an example that the player has received significant coverage, it was not, as I expected people to realise, to suggest that he has only received coverage from this website. Here are more links to articles specifically about the player from a completely different websites:

These are not and neither are the first lot I put up, as far as I can make out routine match reports, the headlines of the articles clearly indicate that they are specifically discussing the player. There is coverage of his football performance, his personal life, his disciplinary issues and interviews with the player as well on a number of sites. There are seven websites listed here and these links all come from the first two pages of a google search for the player's name (and photos on most articles seem to confirm to me we are not dealing with different people). This seems to me to be quite a lot of evidence for GNG from just the first two pages, I think it is reasonably safe to assume that there is more if someone with knowledge of the language was able to go through more links. Like I said before, this article needs attention from a native speaker, not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fenix down. There's enough coverage both sporting and personal to pass GNG. I'm not a Vietnamese speaker either, but Google translate makes it clear that many of the articles listed above are devoted to the subject, and several are quite lengthy and certainly non-trivial. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Max Russo

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

Article does not show subject has notability seperate from Wizards of Waverly Place. Notability is not inherited and must be established by multiple third-party sources. The article currently has a grand total of no sources, and Google News only turns up articles about Jake T. Austin and recaps of the show. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters Can I ask why these 'character on kids show' articles aren't redirected first to see if that course is accepted before an AfD? No sources here and unlikely to be found. Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters. Not a notable fictional character; no sources. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters. Not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Williams (American football)

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

The article makes no assertion of notability. Nathan Williams was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there isn't sufficient non-routine coverage or accomplishment to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 30 it still claimed he played for Miami, even though he'd been released over two months ago. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to this simple web search there appear to be many, many newsworthy articles mentioning the subject. At this volume of content there is clear interest in the individual and clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS specifically lists that argument as one to avoid. Any player for a Division I football team is going to show up in Google News results. It signifies nothing. Before nominating Williams I consulted his Ohio State profile. Despite being a puff piece it recorded no school records by him, nor no national awards. Before nominating this I also, anticipating that you would make this very post, trawled through the first five pages of Google News hits. It's all trivial mention in game coverage. None of these articles are about him as an individual. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're misunderstanding. WP:GOOGLEHITS refers to simply saying that there are "X number" of Google hits and therefore it is notable. What I've stated is that a simple google search has yielded a good number of news websites covering the subject. That's different. One says "lots of hits on anything" another says "lots of coverage in legitimate sources" -- oh, and WP:N does not require that the subject of a news article be the same as the subject of a Wikipedia article to establish notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than routine coverage an NCAA athlete would receive as Mackensen mentioned above. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NGRIDIRON and NCOLLATH. Coverage is just routine sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Coverage is simply routine information. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment coverage is far and away above routine sports coverage of basic box scores. See essay WP:NOTROUTINE for more details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's info out there that isn't in the article, which is rather surprising as this person got a fair bit of coverage as a freshman for a shoplifting charge. So that plus in-depth coverage such as this article tips it into WP:GNG passage. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine coverage of a Division 1 collegiate player. Not sufficient for a GNG pass, in my estimation, nor are criteria for the low bar for pro athletes met. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tarc. I wouldn't say he passes WP:NGRIDIRON, but with the shoplifting thing and the routine coverage I'd say he squeaks by the general notability guideline. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think a shoplifting charge is regular routine coverage, and everything else is general coverage, fails WP:GNG (more coverage than most but still fails) and WP:ATHLETE. We need to stop with that heavy inclusionism of keeping borderline notable BLPs. Secret ^account 14:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shoplifting is very common and many places cover the names of people who are charged and convicted with crimes. Bottom line is his athletic career and it doesn't warrant notability WP:ATHLETE PeteBaltar (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tarc. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete We wouldn't bother with an article on a shoplifter were he not already notable, and as far as sports are concerned this guy just didn't cut it. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, and hasn't received enough coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 05:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Recent AfDs}}
-===[[Kappa (band)]]===
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}
+{| width = "100%"
+|-
+! width="50%" align="left"  | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 30|30 October]]
+! width="50%" align="right" |  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 1|1 November]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
+|}
+</div>
+<div align = "center">'''[[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Guide to deletion]]'''</div>
+{{Cent}}
+<small>{{purge|Purge server cache}}</small>
+__TOC__
+<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjab College Kharian}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kappa (band)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Kallis}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Participatory research}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Walter (musician)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pieg}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phramus}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Valley Educational Press}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Pixton}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Data Products}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PLB Group Ltd}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleocroism}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sameer}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Silberkraus}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovate Nigeria}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedding Babylon}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Mamoun}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNU Enterprise (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Time: Charity Anthology}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Darius}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Fields}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satyabrat Sinha (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddhesh pai}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Tower Hamlets}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Blackman (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haakon Faste}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myriam Joire}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pumpkinhead (rapper)}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Johnson, Sr.}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recharge (magazine)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel L. Young}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/João Rodrigo Silva Santos}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OC Public Libraries}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Gallow}}
-:{{la|Kappa (band)}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kappa (band)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 31#{{anchorencode:Kappa (band)}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kappa_(band) Stats]</span>)
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilio Aguinaldo College ROTC}}
-:({{Find sources|Kappa (band)}})
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Normal University – Agusan del Sur Army ROTC}}
-It's hard to look at this article without getting a headache, but the subject doesn't appear to meet [[WP:NMUSIC]]. Its sources are either cited to the band's social media sites or essentially irrelevant (such as a  recording studio's home page). I was unable to find evidence of notability. [[WP:TNT]] may also apply, as the article is a mess largely written by its subject. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 23:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinema of Bengal}}
-:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians|list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions]]. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 23:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XAudio2}}
-:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England|list of England-related deletion discussions]]. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 23:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAZA TTDI Mosque}}
-*'''Delete''' - Giving you a headache is not a deletion rationale. What is a deletion rationale is the lack of citations to be found and some of the unverifiable claims to fame. While peacocking in places, the constant bolding of terms and external links does little to back up the claims made. Like producing tracks that were never used for CBS. [[Special:Contributions/209.255.230.32|209.255.230.32]] ([[User talk:209.255.230.32|talk]]) 12:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOGI Awards}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staff appreciation}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national football teams by highest FIFA ranking}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven M. Cerutti}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Rawdon}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangu Railway Station}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9 Queens}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dionna Dal Monte}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Żmien L-Ispanjoli}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISSA DaCosta Cup Football Competition 2013}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EP (BrightSide EP)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konrad Pesudovs}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Silberkraus}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexie Lane}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry L. Richman}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benoit Pleska}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoàng Danh Ngọc}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Russo}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Williams (American football)}}
+<hr style="width:55%;" />
+:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br />
+:<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 05:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
+<hr style="width:55%;" />