Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 26: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:57, 26 January 2014

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 January	27 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Aspen Education Group. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Mountain School

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

Not only is Stone Mountain School closed, it was so small, it it not consider noteable Rileychilds (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Maybe it should be merged with Aspen Education Group - Rileychilds (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge We could justify an article: it is a sedondary school, and small size it not necessarily relevant. But considering the particular nature of the school, it probably would do better to merge it into the article on the company, which is a specialist in such schools. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Keep~~ Notability does not change when a school closes. Nor do references go away when they become dead links. Where is the reference that shows that the school is closed? Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've taken down my !vote since I failed to notice that the nominator also made a Merge !vote and that there is no argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aspen Education Group, where it's already covered in a list of similar programs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aspen Education Group. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Aspen Education Group. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Fantastic Film Festivals Federation

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

fails WP:GNG. despite having an international focus, could find no coverage in major international sources like Reuters or BBC. Coverage I found merely confirms it exists or says it is affiliated with a notable other film festival. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2014 (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) 01:00, 2 February 2014 (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) 01:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Cult Cinema and Screen Daily. It gets tracked by Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, who report on the awards given to films. It's not super-notable, like Sundance, but it does get press coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

they are all film related sources, how about some coverage in mainstream press. The Hollywood reporter article is a 1 line mention. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a film-related topic; any coverage will be heavily slanted toward film-related sources, and there's nothing in the GNG that excludes trade press coverage. It's true that the last two links are rather trivial, but I included them to show that high-profile trade press track the organization and its awards. For smaller festivals and organizations, that kind of coverage does tend to be rather minimal, and the best you can usually hope for is a roundup of all the awards; however, not every festival or award gets reported on by these magazines. I've edited the article to make a stronger case for notability, but you're right that I'm not finding in-depth coverage at The New York Times or BBC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE . LibStar (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject may be notable but that this article is so promotional at this point that we are better off starting with a new and more neutral one if someone wants to create it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Rush

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

Hopelessly vapid and promotional article about a pair of musicians. There could be something to them, but if so, then WP:TNT is called for. Hoary (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed about the blatant advertising, but they have two songs that ranked on the Billboard charts and as mentioned on the article, they received a Lo Nuestro nomination. Erick (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2014 (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) 01:00, 2 February 2014 (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) 01:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May well be notable as mentioned above but this is a case for WP:TNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blow it away. Articles creators works are overly promotional, full of puffing and peacocking. Creator engages in account swapping to further their promotional intent. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing, delete their spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IXcoin

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

Electronic currency article (another bitcoin clone) of unclear notability, lacking independent references to establish notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Declined prod. Dialectric (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and WP:FAILN.Blue Riband► 13:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it is not really a large article, either. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lyndsey Turner (director)

The result was speedy delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Ipoh bus crash

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

there's a spike of coverage at the time of event, but 4 years later no WP:PERSISTENT coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 26 January 2014 (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) 00:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting notability.--Charles (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no lasting notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Mall in Columbia. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 The Mall in Columbia shooting

Do NOT delete this. This is an important event. It has specific relevance to the pattern of unexpected violence and mass murder in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyPuma (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do NOT delete this. This is an important event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.131.132 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please do not delete this. I agree that this ia an important date in history. We need to be able to categorize all mass shootings to better understand them. These shootings affect other communities with a ripple effect and we may want to extrapolate backwards, too. Merlinaut (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, just because it is mentioned in RS doesnt make it notable for its own article. Every shooting in the world (or the usa) doesnt warrant its own page. This article has about 6 sentences and not much scope for anything else. Neither is there any lasting notability that it causes some change (as in gun laws, etc). Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft to give time for an informed view of whether the event has enduring significance. See Wikipedia:Drafts. Thincat (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately shootings like this are no longer a rare incident in the US. And this one has not recieved alot of attention either.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - the event is significant to The Mall at Columbia, and the information on the shooting should probably stay there. There isn't enough for a standalone yet, though, and no reason to expect there will be. I disagree that it hasn't gotten a lot of attention, though. It was front-page on The Washington Post almost all of yesterday. Reinana kyuu (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though I'm an inclusionist, so I may be biased. Obviously this isn't something on the scale of the Boston bombings or the Westgate mall attack, but it's an act of violence that went viral in the media, receiving significant attention. There will probably be discussions on what could have been done to prevent it, analysis of police response, politicians weighing in, etc., and it might be useful to have a distinct article to organize all that. G0T0 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; The Mall in Columbia article is stub-sized as it is, so this information will fit well into the existing parent article. (I share the same sadness of other editors that these kinds of violent acts are becoming more and more common.) WikiRedactor (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - The event is significant to The Mall in Columbia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Mall in Columbia. Shooting can be covered in subsection of that article. Dough 48 72 19:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Corn cheese (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently there is a one line sentence in the article that is fine as it stands. I moved the shooting to the "History" section in the mall's article as it distracts from the mall's overall history (WP:NPOV). The main focus of the The Mall in Columbia article should be the mall its-self and not the shooting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one said anything about making the main focus of the article the shooting, but it's certainly noteworthy enough to the subject to deserve more than one sentence. I can understand placing it within History, but it should be set off a bit in its own compartment of that at the least. Reinana kyuu (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as standalone article; This shooting: 1. Has received much media coverage; 2. Involved multiple vics (two shot dead, one shot and wounded, and four hurt in the aftermath); and 3. Was an interracial multiple murder, which may have been racially motivated.

Of course, the reasons I gave for keep are the very ones that motivated someone to go AFD. We must try and suppress, or at the least, distort all murders committed by blacks, mustn’t we? If the shooter had been white, and especially, if a white had murdered two blacks, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.24.90.190.96 (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTNEWS - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dunno about the deep insecurity complex. no one knows or cares about the raceLihaas (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Folklore1 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Another day, another shooting in the US, nothing notable here. WWGB (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles related to negative energy

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

I am not sure what the subject of this article is. In physics (which I have some knowledge of) potential energy can be negative (for example, potential energy of the Coulomb repulsion is negative), and, for example, the total energies of bound states of an electron in a hydrogen atom are negative, and nobody makes any fuzz about it. The kinetic energy is always positive, though it is sometimes convenient to count it from some level, like in solids, and operate with negative energies. There is no fuzz about this either, and there is no room for a separate article on this subject. Concerning esoterics, I am not an expert, but I am deeply concerned with the fact that the article has no material and no sources. Finally, it is not even an article but a list — a list of Wikipedia articles. It just can not be in the main namespace in this form. Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is arguably a indiscriminate collection of information loosely tied together through original research. Even if the article were cleaned up, it seems doubtful that it would satisfy WP:LISTN. Maybe there's hope that it could be salvaged to be an index of physics articles? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands as WP:Original research. The list is trying to combine anti-matter and exotic solutions to known physics, with science fiction, and religious ideas and beliefs. I have no objection to recreation of separate articles, e.g. negative energy in mystical and religious beliefs, but these are in no way related to e.g. Hawking radiation or the Dirac Sea. Similarly negative energy in science fiction usually has very little to do with current religious ideas, and known physics.Martin451 18:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the entire list easily is WP:OR. In addition, even if the list somehow was not OR, the topic is simply not worth having a list about. Seriously, I can't think of a time when it would be necessary to look this up. Maybe this has some merit as a category, but certainly not as a list. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a useful grouping and somewhat OR in the sense that it's too vague. There is no Category:Negative energy and negative energy is currently a redirect to negative mass, which discusses a much narrower concept. Granted, negative energy might be better turned into a dab, because I'm sure there are humorist uses along the lines of [1] (well, that's about "negative waves", but you get the idea) plus new and old religions who might take that idea seriously. But I'm sure there aren't 40+ meanings to "negative energy" as this list/dab seems to suggest. I've picked up one of the articles listed at random: Melanin theory; it doesn't contain the word "negative" at all, so miffed how it might involve negative energy (and what definition thereof it might use). I can understand why Feng shui is listed though ("negative energy" understood/defined as "negative Qi" there). Energy (esotericism) is a separate article from energy though, and there's a large Energy (disambiguation). The issue is that you can paste "negative" in front of many non-physical-science uses for "energy" and they'd make the same amount of [non-]sense as before, so I'm not sure it makes sense to have all such covered in a list/dab... What would make some sense is a section about "negative energy" in Energy (esotericism) to cover that kind of stuff and a redirect to that section along the lines negative energy (esotericism), which could be hatted at negative mass as "negative energy redirects here; for other uses see negative energy (esotericism)". Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Partridge

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

No notability The BBC ref is just to their posting of his bio as a contributor, and tho reliable for the facts of his life, does not show notability . The others are routine press releases.

Accepted from AfC nonetheless DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither the subject's business career nor his appearances as a sideman on daytime TV antique shows demonstrate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This is a mixture of a WP:SNOW closure, a speedy deletion as an unambiguous hoax, and a speedy deletion as a page created by a block-evading editor. (Having looked at some deleted articles, I can say with total confidence that his is another Katrina Villegas sockpuppet.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xyriel Villatez

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

PROD was removed by author, who may have a COI. Although she has had a number of roles, none of them are major, and combined with a lack of reliable coverage, I don't think she's notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Xyriel Villatez blanked the AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is a Katrina sock, Katrina seems really desperate to keep some version of this up. Dloh cierekim 07:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say that it was an autobiography, but she's only 11 years old; thus, it's probably written by her agent, which is arguably even worse. Regardless, she seems to lack lacks notability, though I guess English-language sources might be difficult to come by. In that case, the article can be recreated with native-language sources that properly demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 10:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 10:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Likely an agent spamming his client.~~ Safiel (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I am not sure whether she fails at WP:ENT. I have neutral stand. Delete votes should have some solid reasons. Hitro talk 19:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As well they should. However, it is a bit more difficult to establish notability with a child actress who is relatively obscure in the English speaking world. I see plenty of credits listed and awards won. But are those credits actually notable roles and are the awards actually notable awards. At the moment, I will retain my delete vote on the basis of failing WP:ENT and WP:GNG as well as being WP:COI. I am willing to change if somebody demonstrates notability. Safiel (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. The "official website" doesn't exist. The twitter and facebook accounts don't exist. The IMDB page links to a guy named Randy Burt. The first 7 references are all non-existent links. The reference claiming her as a Yahoo child star of the year winner actually specifies Xyriel Manabat as the winner of the award (much of the content from this article seems to be copied from there as well). The only non-wikipedia results of a google search of the name were about a basketball player from Niger. --JamesMoose (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concurring with previous poster in this being a hoax, rather than spam, as I indicated in my earlier vote, which I have now stricken. I have tagged the article as being a hoax. Safiel (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G5 probably applies. Please see User:dlohcierekim/working/x for background. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Katrina Villegas. The pattern of the article is the same as those already deleted from her socks. The "Filipina child actress". The great looking sourcing that does not pan out. The "and is a member of Christian". The eponymous article. The accomplisments that would be more fitting an adult veteran actor rather than a child. There may be a FaceBook page with someone else's picture on it as in a recent iterattion. One iteration had a great looking webpage as a primary source. (She is creating these new socks and new articles faster than I can keep up with them.) ((This iteration has a whole new list of accomplshments, so she is morphing the articles. )) Dloh cierekim 07:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm at work and must stop now. If someone should like to consider re-opening the SPI page. Dloh cierekim 07:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Browne

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

Contested PROD, with the following concern "I don't feel that a PROD is appropriate for a player who has played in the highest level of Irish football, and has a 7-year old article. There should be a paper-trail ..." Original reason for nomination still applies - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played for a club in a fully professional league. JMHamo (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football. No indication of GNG pass based on any other activities within or outside football, partuclarly as the player only appears to have played a handful of times in the best part of a decade. Fenix down (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Somerset hot air balloon crash

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

Fails WP:NOT - This was a news story, however no lasting effect has been claimed or demonstrated. WikiNews is where this needs to be covered. LGA _talk^edits 07:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak~~ keep It has some technical merit as coverage of an unusual event, a balloon accident at what is an unusually high altitude for ballooning. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to lasting effect (see the AAIB report), it has given rise to changes in operating advice and practice for such flights, specifically to reduce the speed of descent from altitude and the means employed to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete hot air balloon crashes still need to WP:EVENT. the coverage is routine, event happened and subsequent investigation. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. News. Szzuk (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regius Professor of Anatomy (Aberdeen)

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

Does not meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia LT910001 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep articles on historic named chairs. Regius chairs are particularly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do indeed generally keep such articles for named chairs in major universities, and this particular one is not merely notable, but famous. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2014 (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) 00:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since such chairs are normally included in the encyclopedia.LM2000 (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mötley Crüe's tenth studio album

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

WP:HAMMER at its finest. I couldn't find any coverage at all. Could be speedied as G3 as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's Hammer time. No meaningful content, completely unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, no reliable sources confirm there will be a new studio album. In fact, the band has announced a farewell tour today. Permafrost46 (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not worth the redirect that the last creation of this ärticlë was granted.TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Raye Pimentel

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

Article CSD:A7'ed numerous times, puppetish new user deleting current CSD. Subject does not seem to pass WP:FILMMAKER and sampled references seem dubious at best (blog posts, etc) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 06:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN individual failing WP:42. Should be CSD'd and salted. reddogsix (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This person has as much of an importance as some of the other "filmmakers" on wiki. You can research this person on Google and see for yourself. He's on Martin Scorsese's IMDB, Richard Matheson's IMDB and Richard Price's IMDB. Also let's not forget to mention that it clearly states in the Basic Criteria for Notable people on Wikipedia “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.” Which I have provided.Monaeface25 (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other stuff exists, just because other articles exist on Wikipedia does not mean this article meets the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The existing support is trivial at best. reddogsix (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is no evidence whatever of notability, for two reasons. Firstly, it is not a reliable source, as anyone can submit content. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is indiscriminate. Essentially, IMDb aims to be as inclusive as possible, and so it accepts content about virtually anyone who has ever taken any part in making any film, no matter how minor their contribution. Also, I'm afraid you have misunderstood the point of "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That means that the total coverage must be substantial, and that a number of moderate-sized bits of coverage may together contribute substantial coverage. It does not mean that large numbers of links to pages that do no more than barely mention the subject are good enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the attempt to suggest notability by flooding the article with large numbers of references, there is no significant coverage cited at all. Most of the sources merely list Pimentel's name in one or more credits, or make similar trivial mentions. A few of them don't even mention him at all. Only three of the cited sources gives more than just a mention of his name, and all three of them are clearly promotional sites. There is www.shortfilmcentral.com, which has the self-declared purpose "to help filmmakers promote their short films". There is frankiem.ipower.com, which declares its purpose to be "to Build New Opportunities for Young People", and announces that "The artists selected are the stars of tomorrow being launched today". There is "cineteam.co.uk" which does not, as far as I have been able to find, make any such clear declaration that it exists to promote those whom it lists, but perusal of the site makes it pretty clear that it has user-submitted content for its members to promote themselves. Google searches produce Alexander Raye Pimentel's own web site, IMDb, Facebook, Wikipedia, Vimeo, Linkedin, etc, and again sites that clearly exist for people to use to promote their own work. In short, absolutely no evidence anywhere of coming anywhere near satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards, but plenty of evidence of a concerted effort to get publicity on numerous web sites. (It is clear from the editing history of the creator of this article (including deleted edits) that this Wikipedia article is part of that effort.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Rocco

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

An article about the same man was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Rocco. Here's an extract from the final version of the article on Leonardo:

In the years of salon ownership, he began to become notable in the hispanic world, music, television and fashion industries, working with artists such as [[Luis Fonsi]], [[David Bisbal]], [[Lorena Rojas]], [[Jamie Foxx]], [[Juanes]], [[Paulina Rubio]], [[Alejandro Fernández]], [[Belinda]], [[Fey]] and [[Adamari López]].<ref>{{cite news | author=[[Terra Networks]]| title=Look al estilo de los famosos | url=http://www.terra.com/mujer/fotos/look_al_estilo_de_los_famosos/83199| work=[[Terra Networks]]|language=Spanish| date= Mar 10, 2013| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | author=[[The Huffington Post]]| title=Miami Hair, Beauty & Fashion 2012 by Rocco Donna in Viceroy Hotel Miami. | url=http://voces.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/miami-hair-beauty-fashion-2012-fotos_n_2113585.html| work=[[The Huffington Post]]|language=Spanish| date= Nov 11, 2012| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref>

And here's an extract from the new one on Leo:

In the years of salon ownership, he began to become notable in the Hispanic world, music, television and fashion industries, working with artists such as [[Luis Fonsi]], [[David Bisbal]], [[Lorena Rojas]], [[Jamie Foxx]], [[Juanes]], [[Paulina Rubio]], [[Alejandro Fernández]], [[Belinda Peregrín|Belinda]], [[Fey (singer)|Fey]] and [[Adamari López]].<ref>{{cite news | author=[[Terra Networks]]| title=Look al estilo de los famosos | url=http://www.terra.com/mujer/fotos/look_al_estilo_de_los_famosos/83199| work=[[Terra Networks]]|language=Spanish| date= Mar 10, 2013| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | author=[[The Huffington Post]]| title=Miami Hair, Beauty & Fashion 2012 by Rocco Donna in Viceroy Hotel Miami. | url=http://voces.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/miami-hair-beauty-fashion-2012-fotos_n_2113585.html| work=[[The Huffington Post]]|language=Spanish| date= Nov 11, 2012| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref>

Same old article then. It's mostly just:

lists of the celebs whose hair he's done (sporadically sourced), plus
other stuff (unsourced)

I'd summarily delete it, if it weren't for the fact that it was me who nominated it for its previous AfD. Leonardo Rocco doesn't exist now, but I recommend salting it anyway, and deleting and salting Leo Rocco. (Anyone would then be free to create a new article on Rocco, but would have to do so via the appropriate route.)

See also WP:AfD/Kike San Martín (3rd nomination) (also started today) for the same thing elsewhere: article deleted via AfD, posted a second time under a different title (though for San Martín, subsequently renamed to the original title). (Incidentally, or not, both re-creations were by the same username.) Hoary (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing new here to change his notability, it's still an overly promotional puff piece. Last afd result should be applied here. Reposting is part of a bad faithed gaming of the system.

Lorena Pinot created by a Misty. Deleted 2 April 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at Lorena Pinot (singer).

Kike San Martín created by a Misty. Deleted 20 March 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at "Kike" San Martín.

Leonardo Rocco created by a Misty. Deleted 9 April 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at Leo Rocco.

All reposted by a new account at a new location, both to avoid scrutiny, trying to sneak the articles back in through a back door. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (this and other name variations) - no further evidence of encyclopaedic notability since the previous AfD decision which should stand per CSD G4. AllyD (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete via WP:G5 as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Morning277. I have also salted the entries to hopefully prevent further re-creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Innoz

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

This is the third article on the topic. The first was speedily deleted as advertising, and the second as a creation of a group of undisclosed paid editors working for the publicists Wiki-PR (deletion log). SPI reports about the group were closed by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) without investigation, who wrote that "You cannot use editing the same article or topic area as evidence" [2] Shortly afterward, CitizenNeutral (talk · contribs) created stubs to replace the articles which had been speedily deleted. —rybec 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: the contributor of these articles has now been blocked as a sock-puppet of "Morning277". As this nomination was essentially an attempt to have the WP:CSD#G5 criteria applied to the work of an editor in good standing, it should be unnecessary now. —rybec 00:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also articles created by CitizenNeutral to replace deleted articles posted by the same group:

Tom Kemp (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sublimeharmony (talk · contribs), an account used by the group, posted a draft on the topic; later an article was posted and delted (deletion log)

BillFloat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

has had only minor changes by editors other than CitizenNeutral [3]

Was also posted at simple:BillFloat; see Chenzw's comment at notice board there

Heliospectra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sublimeharmony draft

has had one minor change since CitizenNeutral stopped work on it

Chris Hobart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

changes since CitizenNeutral stopped work on it consist of replacing "Sept" with "Sep" in the body of the article, maintenance tags, persondata, defaultsort and categories [4]--no meaningful changes to the body of the article

Volusion (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Virool

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

The first article to have the Virool title was deleted [14] as a creation of the banned editor MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs), who has been associated with a group of undisclosed paid editors who have been identified as working for the company Wiki-PR. The current article was placed at Virool (company) after the original one was deleted. This tactic of using unnecessary disambiguation when recreating deleted articles was commonly used by this group of editors. Another habit of those editors was to make a series of minor edits until autoconfirmed, then post an article in a single edit, then abandon the account. Nertal (talk · contribs) followed that pattern. My report at WP:SPI was closed by DeltaQuad without investigation, along with scores of others. —rybec 05:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g5, Morning277 sock. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadapt

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

Looks like self-promotion: this article was created by the single-purpose account J.millis; two company press releases [15], [16] name a Jon Millis as Hadapt's "media contact". —rybec 05:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g5, Morning277 sock. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzMob

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

The Daily Trojan is a college newspaper. Whether the piece in the Orange County Register is truly independent is questionable: the marketing coordinator (archived copy) for Buzzmob, Kjellrun "K.J." Owens, worked for the Register, according to the descriptions of Youtube videos [17] [18] linked from her social media page (archived copy) Also two other self-published pages ([19], [20]) (archived copies: [21], [22]) say she has worked for both the Register and Buzzmob. A couple of Register stories [23], [24] credit her. —rybec 05:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtiaq Ali

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

A non notable person with doubtful claims of being an actor, writer, and director of 30 shows and films. A simple Google search does not even result anything near to what is claimed. These claims as obvious from the history of the article are because of a copy paste from the article Faisal Rehman and later those contents were reduced and dob and some other info were changed. Besides if we are to believe what is written in the article the subject born in 1992 started his career at the age of 10 and in 13 years of his career at such a young age has done 30 shows and films as an actor, director and screen writer, an incredible job. But what is astonishing is that this deed doesn't find a mention in any sources let alone the reliable ones. SMS ^Talk 05:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 05:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 05:08, 26 January 2014 (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) 00:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything worth noting about his actor. Seems like a clear fail of WP:NACTOR. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Barnett

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

WP:NOTABILITY. This article does not show the sort of third-party coverage we're looking for. The Forbes article is by him, not about him. The Business Insider piece is just a form interview "written" by a group he's a member of. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - Same article that has been deleted 3 times previously. Subject is still no more notable than before. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the first two times articles of this title were deleted, they were for different individuals with a similar name. However, yes, it was deleted at AFD once. Additionally, an article for the same individual (using a stage name) failed at Articles For Creation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's good at getting himself in things, from the look of it - but there's not much in the way of independent reliable sources. The Forbes thing is one of those youth spot things, and it's by him, not about him.. No indication of how well any of these ventures actually do. I sometimes think that every man and his dog (or do I mean bitch?) has a clothing line out. I've always preferred to have the labels on the inside... In time, maybe. Not yet, unless a load of evidence appears. BTW Yes, the first two Byian Barnett articles were different people and should be disregarded. I've a feeling salt might be need with this one, if now now, then next time it appears. Peridon (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can these sources be unreliable? He was vetted by Forbes AND Business Insider. The notoriety comes from the fact that this kid is SEVENTEEN! The fact he has accomplished this much before he has even graduated high school seems like enough for me. He is a fixture in his home town and in the industry as a whole. Forbes didn't have to put that article online, they chose to for a reason. Michaellandis (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Insider piece is just a copy of this piece from the YEC website. Given how similar pieces are now appearing also at the Yahoo Small Business site, it looks like these are basically press releases. They are not material generated by the sites in question. Per WP:GNG, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. The Forbes piece is by, not about, the subject; we do not consider being a writer for Forbes as inherently notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no sign of notoriety. Notoriety is a word that is correctly applied to the notability of Al Capone and Jack the Ripper - fame for reasons of being bad. It does not (I hope...) apply to a very respectable looking young businessman who will probably have an article here one day - for the right reasons. This word is, through the efforts of so many rappers and hiphop performers. being misapplied to non-notorious people. The rappers etc seem to all want to claim real notoriety, even if they've only ever had one parking ticket... Peridon (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fluff piece Secret ^account 17:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Kakhelishvili

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Umaglesi Liga may be professional. While there is undoubtedly some degree of professionalism in the league, claims that the league is fully pro are not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Where's the evidence that Umaglesi Liga isn't fully professional. Relatively large stadiums, good-sized crowds, good standing in Europe that puts it in line with leagues that are fully professional. As this player has played for years in this league, the deletion hinges entirely on Umaglesi Liga not being fully professional. So where's the evidence? Nfitz (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove notability, not for us to dis-prove notability. Giant Snowman 15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously ... but surely this debate has happened before, and we wouldn't have a bunch of people trying to delete articles without having looked into the issue before. So how about providing a useful answer instead of just wasting peoples time by obfuscating. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How it generally works is, articles about players in xyz league are sent to AfD, sources appear to confirm the league's status and the articles are kept, or they don't and they aren't. Of course, if this particular player has had a very long career, there is a good chance he could meet the general notability guideline. But there is no evidence of that. C 679 09:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, he has not received significant media coverage and fails WP:NFOOTBALL too. JMHamo (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football. No indication of GNG pass based on any other activities within or outside football. @Nfitz: - as has been pointed out to you in previous AfDs recently, no one is saying the FPL listing is faultless, but it is the current agreed consensus. If you have evidence that the Umaglesi League is FULLY professional, please present it at the WT:FOOTY page for discussion. If it is indicative of FPL status, then the listing can be updated and any previously deleted articles revived however, a specific player AfD is not the place for such a discussion. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment @Fenix down: First though, I wanted to read where this consensus has been agreed. I can't find reference to where this consensus has been agreed upon. Presumably if we've got to point we are deleting players, a consensus has been reached. Where is discussion? It's all I'm asking at this point. No pointing rehashing if it's all well sorted. I'm no expert on Georgian soccer ... and it's not like Uruguay which is always on TV. Nfitz (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The consensus is WP:FPL. As the Georgian League is not on there it is right to state that there is no consensus that it is fully pro, therefore the only assumption available to editors at the moment is that it is not. If you feel that it is fully pro, by all means dig out some sources and start a discussion at the project page, GS or another admin can restore any deleted Georgian footballer article if it is added to the list of FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the lack of discussion or mention at that page, is not consensus. It simply is the lack of previous consideration. While I doubt this league is fully professional, I don't see any need to misrepresent that consensus exists! Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no evidence of sufficient notability. C 679 09:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liao Junjian

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article exists in Chinese, which has no bearing whatsoever on notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, he has not received significant media coverage and fails WP:NFOOTBALL too. JMHamo (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football. No indication of GNG pass based on any other activities within or outside football. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant media coverage, such as [25] [26] There are many more routine articles that he is mentioned in the headlines, and hundreds more where he's mentioned in the article. Nfitz (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no reasonable evidence he passes GNG, two articles from the same source do not meet the requirements. "Many more routine articles [where] he is mentioned" do not establish notability either. He hasn't played at a high enough level or gained enough attention, per the guidelines, to have an article. C 679 12:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Eye of Minds

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

− Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The non-notable book has been removed. Science Saturdays (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete - Does not meet WP:BKCRIT~~. It is now well sourced, so keep. ///EuroCarGT 03:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The book has been removed. Science Saturdays (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Science Saturdays: What do you mean by removed? ///EuroCarGT 04:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- @EuroCarGT: The book that was deemed non-notable has been taken off of the sources list. Science Saturdays (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some sources for it and the book should have no problem meeting notability guidelines now. On a side note, I did notice that Dashner was very vocal about this not being a dystopian series in his eyes and as such I've removed any such labels for the book from the lead and infobox. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Thank you for the support and edits! Science Saturdays (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators (Wikipedia)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. While there are sources for all of these articles, they are not notable separate and apart from Wikipedia, and therefore should not be forked off of Wikipedia. The items received attention in the context of Wikipedia, and, were these articles written about subsections/subprocesses of any other website, we would find their notability lacking. We should not treat Wikipedia differently than we do other websites. Initial filing of this AfD

Sven Manguard Wha? 04:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to project page and it's just (Wikipedia:) blaster talk! see 07:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wikipedia. The minutiae of Wikipedia does indeed get more coverage than most web sites, but that doesn't necessarily make this minutiae encyclopedic. Nobody (hopefully) would advocate a series of content forks from Flickr or Gmail that describe every minor aspect of those websites. New Gmail features probably get more coverage than some C-list celebrities do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa says [27] that the most popular sites are google.com, facebook.com, youtube.com, yahoo.com, baidu.com, wikipedia.org, qq.com and taobao.com (in that order). There are roughly 200 articles in each of Category:Google services, Category:Google, Category:Yahoo! and their subcategories. Category:Facebook has around 100. Category:YouTube has around 450. Category:Wikipedia has around 320. Category:Baidu and Category:Tencent Holdings (for QQ) each have 11; Category:Alibaba_Group has 5. So it seems that the most popular US-based Web sites each have between 100 and 450 related articles, and the most popular Chinese Web sites each have around 5 or 10.

Can we can dismiss the stories in the Atlantic, the Daily Mail, Wired, BBC News, and NBC News just because all are about the same event and all appeared in the same month?

If so, that still leaves three scholarly papers. Their titles, Modeling Wikipedia admin elections using multidimensional behavioral social networks, Taking up the mop: identifying future wikipedia administrators and Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: how wikipedia administrators mold public opinion, imply that they are largely about the administrators. Although two appear in the same publication, there is no overlap among their authors. One appeared in 2008 and the others in 2013.

The sources seem to meet WP:42. —rybec 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I started my comment, the nomination said "While well sourced and well written, the project's administrators really aren't notable separate and apart from Wikipedia itself, and so this shouldn't be forked from the main coverage of Wikipedia." and it was just for the one article. —rybec 13:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The main article about Wikipedia is 188K which, per WP:SIZE, is much too large and so should be divided into sub-topics per WP:SPLIT. How we divide the content is a matter of editorial discretion and, if the split isn't quite right, would be amended by merger not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Wikipedia is a bit large, but it's not that dramatic. WP:SIZE is about readable prose, not raw document size. The readable prose is about 65K, which means that it probably should be split, but it's not yet mandatory. Wikipedia administrators could be easily integrated into that article without substantially increasing the size. I mean, there isn't all that much to say. I like the info from the scientific studies (it's interesting), but the rest is fluff that can be left behind. It wouldn't overwhelm the parent article. An article about Wikipedia's logo strikes me as silly trivia, but I'm willing to admit that it has enough trivial coverage to warrant a merge. WIR could be reduced to a single sentence: Some people think it's a waste of money[1], but others think it's pretty keen.[2] NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since it is explaining pretty well, I don't think it should be removed. Unless there is some similar page. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Administrators (Wikipedia). Per rybec's analysis, there exist multiple in-depth independent RS (and I would count the stories in Atlantic, the Daily Mail, Wired, BBC News, and NBC News as another RS for the purposes of notability) upon which to base this article so this topic passes WP:GNG notability thresholds. If a feature of a website is notable, there is no problem having an article on it, e.g., Facebook Graph Search. The article itself seems to have no major problems. A notable topic and no major article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A relevant recent AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citation needed, which closed as delete. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discussed meets notability requirements, namely secondary sources; I am sure we can find space amongst our 4 million plus articles for this. --LT910001 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating all these in a single AfD was a bad idea. Some should probably be merged and some kept separate per GNG and WP:SUMMARY, but the set of articles listed here is too diverse for a single AfD. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above comment. Wikipedian in Residence, in particular. seems well supported by sources and it should certainly be kept. The different articles should not be discussed together. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that these needed AfDed separately. Those that are WP:GNG should be Kept and the others Merged unless WP:TOOLONG becomes a significant issue. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep secondary coverage seems significant enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of combined nomination and at least some of these being supported by significant coverage in secondary sources. (Cherry picking a la "keep x, delete y, redirect z, merge a into x, delete b only if x is kept" etc. just creates a mire for determination of consensus). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that it is useful, it answers a question that is not answered elsewhere on line, deletion is just picky navel gazing. Where it goes is irrelevant to the guy who makes the Google search. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, as those articles should have not been lumped together. Strong keep for administrators, the topic is very much notable (this group is subject to a number of academic studies). Some others I might have voted differently, but since this is a group nom, it's not an issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiane Brown

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

Non-notable local crime. Fails NN criteria. See WP:CRIME. reddogsix (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete terribly tragic case, but sad to say it happens all the time nowadays. WP:VICTIM, WP:GNG, etc. Ruby Murray 03:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have been watching this article for a week or so now trying to figure out what my opinion about it is. And from what I can see this is a case of WP:CRIME. However the article definitly needs sourcing and a copyedit but that is not a good reason for deletion. Contact the article creator if it is kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does what you said justify keeping the article per Wikipedia guidelines? reddogsix (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep, for the moment - currently it is too WP:RECENT to tell on WP:GNG. A move WP:VICTIM to Murder of Tiane Brown would be needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete definitely fails WP:CRIME "historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role" is not demonstrated. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Foxy Brown (rapper)#2004–2005: Black Roses. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rose Entertainment

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

Record label owned by Foxy Brown who seems to be the sole artist with only one album in 2008 thus not a very large label and another case of an artist's own non-notable label. Not much information to add or improve the article's state aside from the current. Google News searches provided nothing useful and this search found some news links but mostly in her name and it doesn't even seem this company has much ground or a website. My suggestion if not deletion is redirecting to Foxy_Brown_(rapper)#2004.E2.80.932005:_Black_Roses which would seem sensible. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The label has seen chart action, so it is at least marginally notable. However, with a single release, and because it is the artist's own label, a redirect to Foxy Brown per above makes the most sense. I seriously doubt the label had its own staff or marketing efforts independent of Koch Records. Seems to be an imprint only. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fusebill

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

Not notable; Most of the refs are local business journals and therefore not reliable sources, for what they publish is best considered as pure press releases. The other references are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a non-notable organization. Paviliolive (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Entertainment

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, there are no secondary references establishing its notability.[28][29][30] Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 02:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does not give much indication, but they get significant coverage from Variety: [31], [32], [33], [34]. Probably more at The Hollywood Reporter, too, but I don't think THR makes their archive freely available. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article looks a bit better now. There's at least some kind of history and assertion of notability, but about half of the citations are trivial mentions that can't be used to establish notability. Still, I think the linked articles on Variety go pretty far. I tried checking a few other TV and film-related sites, but Prometheus Entertainment doesn't really seem to be a major player, like Amblin. Still, they seem to be known for their pop culture documentaries and reality shows. One of them even got a few Emmy nominations. I guess that counts for something. The biggest problem is that the article is rather heavily biased toward sourcing from Variety. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kevin Burns. There's some coverage of this company in reliable sources, but it's almost always passing mentions in the context of discussing Burns rather than anything in-depth about the company. The Variety sources listed above are good, but are mostly project announcements rather than discussions of the company.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Looks like there is enough out there to establish notability --CyberXRef^☎ 05:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kike San Martín

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

AfD/Kike San Martín (2nd nomination) closed as "delete". I was neither the nominator of the AfD (The Banner) nor its closer (Keeper76) but I was the most verbose contributor to it. For this reason, I hesitate before summarily deleting it, and instead bring it to others' attention here.

The article was recreated as ""Kike" San Martín", but it's pretty similar to the previously deleted article, whose latest version admins can see here. As an example, from the old, deleted version:

San Martín began his career studying marketing and advertising. Working in a fashion boutique, he photographed regular people wearing its clothing out in Argentina's night scene. San Martín's work caught the interest of a regional newspaper. As a result, he developed a section in the Sunday supplement dedicated to capture the spontaneous heart and spirit of Argentinas' nightlife. Since this first job, San Martín's work in Miami in the editorial industry has included a freelance job in the newspaper ''[[El Nuevo Herald]]''.<ref name="misionesonline2">{{cite news | author=''Diario "Misiones Online"''| title=Kike San Martín quiere fotografiar estrella de Hollywood | url=http://www.misionesonline.net/noticias/12/05/2012/kike-san-martin-quiere-fotografiar-estrella-de-hollywood| work=''Misiones Online'', Argentina| date= May 12, 2012| accessdate=Mar 16, 2013}} {{es icon}}</ref>

From the current one:

San Martín began his career studying marketing and advertising. Working in a fashion boutique, he photographed regular people wearing its clothing out in Argentina's night scene. San Martín's work caught the interest of a regional newspaper. As a result, he developed a section in the Sunday supplement dedicated to capture the spontaneous heart and spirit of Argentinas' nightlife. Since this first job, San Martín's work in Miami in the editorial industry has included a freelance job in the newspaper ''[[El Nuevo Herald]]''.<ref name="misionesonline2">{{cite news | author=''Diario "Misiones Online"''| title=Kike San Martín quiere fotografiar estrella de Hollywood | url=http://www.misionesonline.net/noticias/12/05/2012/kike-san-martin-quiere-fotografiar-estrella-de-hollywood| work=''Misiones Online'', Argentina| date= May 12, 2012| accessdate=Mar 16, 2013}} {{es icon}}</ref>

Uh-huh. (Even "Argentinas" remains plural.)

But hang on, there's a new section, titled "PeTA". Here's what it says (after markup-stripping):

Since 2011 the actress and model Patricia de Leon[12] worked with PETA[13] to reduce support for bullfighting among Hispanic people, and was photographed by Kike San Martín for an anti bullfighting campaign.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

Most of the proffered sources are in Spanish. Of course there is nothing wrong with this, but anyway let's just look at the titles that these sources are claimed to have. These include:

"Ami James: 'Only Cowards Abuse Animals'. Pictures of Kike San Martin". Actual title: "Ami James: ‘Only Cowards Abuse Animals’". (The web page shows one photo; KSM is identified as the photographer in small type. The web page says nothing about KSM.)
"Marco Antonio Regil Hosts PETA Latino's Star-Studded Launch Party, shot by renowned photographer Kike San Martin". Actual title: "Marco Antonio Regil Hosts PETA Latino’s Star-Studded Launch Party". (The web page, written in press-release-speak, does say "The ad, available here, was shot by renowned photographer Kike San Martin.")
"Actriz panameña se desnuda en campaña de PETA con imágenes del fotógrafo Kike San Martín". Actual title: "Actriz panameña se desnuda en campaña de PETA". The only mention of KSM is "Las imágenes fueron tomadas por el fotógrafo Kike San Martín y constituyeron la primera actividad promovida por PETA Latino."
"Ecología: La actriz panameña Patricia de León se desnuda para promover PETA Latino con fotos de Kike San Martín". Actual title: "La actriz panameña Patricia de León se desnuda para promover PETA Latino". (Only mention of KSM is "...en una sesión realizada por el fotógrafo Kike San Martín.")
"Con fotos de Kike San Martín, la actriz panameña Patricia de León se desnuda para promover la dieta vegana". Actual title: "La actriz panameña Patricia de León se desnuda para promover la dieta vegana". (Only mention of KSM is "Las imágenes fueron tomadas por el fotógrafo Kike San Martín [...]".)

One problem I pointed out in the second AfD for this article was that the references within it often had their titles more or less subtly altered to emphasize the importance of the biographee, Kike San Martín. This "new" article shows that the person or group serially (re)creating it has learned nothing. The article also contains much unsourced name-dropping (all the celebs that KSM has photographed, etc), and really doesn't assert much notability (in the non-Wikipedia sense of the word). In view of all of this I suggest deletion and salting of both this article and "Kike" San Martín (currently a redirect). -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Rocco (despite its title, a second AfD for the same article), also started today. -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment KSM is a contributor of celeb photos to Wikimedia Commons. Their captions in en:Wikipedia link to the article on him. They turn out to be an odd bunch of articles; the most amusing I've yet encountered is that on Carlos Mejia, an article that maybe should come to AfD as well. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated that one for G11. Perhaps this should be considered for some of the others as wll. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. What is new here does not change his notability, last afd result should be applied here. Reposting is part of a bad faithed gaming of the system.

Lorena Pinot created by a Misty. Deleted 2 April 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at Lorena Pinot (singer).

Kike San Martín created by a Misty. Deleted 20 March 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at "Kike" San Martín.

Leonardo Rocco created by a Misty. Deleted 9 April 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at Leo Rocco.

All reposted by a new account at a new location, both to avoid scrutiny, trying to sneek the articles back in through a back door. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kouhrang Dam

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

Small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability since April 2010; however, no improvements were made for establishing notability. No English search results, except different wikies based on this page. There may be more deep coverage in Farsi. Beagel (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a hydroelectric generation plant and dam, notability can be assumed; and sources are very likely to be found in Farsi. Systemic bias may be an issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not every hydroplant and dam is notable, particularly in the case of micro- and small hydro projects. You can't just asume a notability of every micro- and small scale project. If there are sources satisfying WP:GNG, the article should be kept. Otherwise, it should be deleted. During almost four years nobody has provided any reliable third party source providing a significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail. Just mentioning the name of the dam by sources is not enough for WP:GNG. As for Systemic bias, it may be an issue, of course, but unlikely. During the last four years, members of WP:DAMS, particularly user:NortyNort has expanded all similar stubs created by the same author. Remained only stubs where no sources available. There is also no article in Farsi. Beagel (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Given the growth trend for renewable energy plants, notability cannot be simply assumed, or else things would quickly get out of hand. Johnfos (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fairly notable; part of a larger water project, >50m in height at least (need to do more research), and has a sizable power plant. I added some references but don't have the time now to do more work on the article. Seems some English references recently became available for this one. I will expand this one more shortly.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so this HPP is Kouhrang 2 and is part of a large water transfers project. I thought it was Kouhrang 3 which is a large arch dam to be constructed downstream at a later date.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn my nomination. The article has significantly improved and its notability is established by sources. Beagel (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piran Dam

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

Small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability since April 2010; however, no improvements were made for establishing notability. No English search results, except different wikies based on this page. There may be more deep coverage in Farsi. Beagel (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability not an issue here. There are other proofs to the existence of the dam, see http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/49QB1KCA3X5WO8MFP6GETUR7IV2Y0H , http://www.climate-change.ir/en/CDM.asp --Soman (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a hydroelectric generation plant and dam, notability can be assumed; and sources are very likely to be found in Farsi. Systemic bias may be an issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not every hydroplant and dam is notable, particularly in the case of micro- and small hydro projects. You can't just asume a notability of every micro- and small scale project. If there are sources satisfying WP:GNG, the article should be kept. Otherwise, it should be deleted. During almost four years nobody has provided any reliable third party source providing a significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail. The CDM project page, provided by Soman, provides a coverage, so it may meet the criteria, but it would be helpful if there will be also third party sources. As for Systemic bias, it may be an issue, of course, but unlikely. During the last four years, members of WP:DAMS, particularly user:NortyNort has expanded all similar stubs created by the same author. Remained only stubs where no sources available. Beagel (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Given the growth trend for renewable energy plants, notability cannot be simply assumed, or else things would quickly get out of hand. Johnfos (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of power stations in Iran or just delete. I did a similar AfDthree years ago on a plethora of planned dams in Iran. Hard to find information on these and it is a small hydroelectric plant. I have worked on many of these articles and expanded what I could. If we don't delete or redirect it will be four more years!... of stub status...--NortyNort (Holla) 14:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn my nomination. Minimum notability is established although it needs more third party sources. Beagel (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christine D'Clario

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

Notability per WP:MUSBIO not supported by any sources. —Josh3580_talk/hist 01:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No evidence of notability. Awards appear to be non-notable.reddogsix (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established.LM2000 (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/christine-dclario-mn0002688963 Multiple albums on an important Christian worship music label (Integrity Music) clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO number five. Nothing at http://jesusfreakhideout.com/artists/default.asp?STARTLETTER=C but she appears to be primarily focused on the Latino market. Definitely needs to be cleaned. Ping me if the article survives (as it should) and either I or someone from the Christian music project will help with that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not establish the notability of this subject. Folgertat (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant claims of notability, awards mentioned dont establish notability either. RadioFan (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All India Kashmiri Samaj

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

Advocacy article for political organization -- no substantial references bout the organization itself . DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable organization. The present state of the article ought to be dealt with a rewrite, not deletion. Google books gives 27 results for 'All India Kashmiri Samaj' (in Latin script), there are also texts that use 'All India Kashmir Samaj'. --Soman (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which do you think are substantial? DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=YNMQNnW_QRgC&pg=PT52, http://books.google.com/books?id=QDYhj5IQJrsC&pg=PA166, http://books.google.com/books?id=-kduAAAAMAAJ --Soman (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectively: Doesn't seem to mention AIKS at all, merely mentions AIKS, Google doesn't permit me to read it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a Social Organisation, or a socio-political organisation to represent the voice of the minority community of the Kashmir Valley region. It would be inappropriate to call it a advocacy article for a political organisation, which it is clearly not. Ample credible sources are cited where the name occurs in notable dailies & news articles. It would be too early to judge it for deletion. We need to allow the article to mature & take better form. -Ambar (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article which mentions the Youth wing of All India Kashmiri Samaj - YAIKS. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/not-successful-in-ensuring-return-of-kashmiri-pandits-omar/1/334577.html . Should provide some content & citation clues for the article. -Ambar (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial microRNA

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

This entry is not created in encyclopedic style. It is also an orphan. Mehedi (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2014 (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) 00:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone still wants to improve the article ask me or any other administrator for userfication.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee USA Network

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

A purely promotional article, here since 2006, with 3/4 of the content copied from their website. . I have not been able to find any sufficiently RSs, though they may exist. Even if they do, this would need to be started over.

I see the related articles in the see alsos here: Jubilee 2000 and Jubilee Debt Coalition. Neither of them seems better sourced, and they seem equally promotional. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-write. Organization clearly passes WP:GNG, with coverage in Bay Area Indy Media, Inter Press Service, and the Daily Californian. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons that DGG gives. If the person who above suggests "Keep and re-write" had done a moderate amount of rewriting, I might think otherwise; but as this person hasn't made even token edits, I'm unconvinced. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State Investors Bancorp

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

DePRODed as being large enough to require discussion. No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A little harder to support this one due to its size, but it has been around for 120 years which for a smaller bank is probably notable for simply having stayed independent and surviving for so long. In any case, appears to have enough independent third party refs to meet WP:GNG. I don't see how WP:NOTYELLOW even applies. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VMS Mosaic In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been very skeptical about such articles, and have nominated a good many of them for deletion. This firm appears sufficiently large to be given the benefit of the doubt. Corporate size is not a formal criterion, but it is not irrelevant. We need some basis for decision, and the GNG doesn';t help much, because it's generally ambiguous if the materual in the sources is significant coverage in the usual sense. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This financial institution is publicly traded, has been around for over a century and has marked itself as notable in legal, banking, and business circles. Yes, it needs to have some work done here, and the article needs some fleshing out, but I think it serves a very valid purpose. I know that Wiki is not a business directory, but this entry is notable in my opinion and for what it is worth. BerkeleyLaw1979 00:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Festarch

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

couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An event in Italy which has no equivalent article on the Italian Wikipedia, following two deletions there. The website is currently giving details on the 2012 festival, and the most substantial 3rd party coverage that I can find on any of its years is this. Fails WP:NEVENT. AllyD (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo Camp

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 04:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Blue

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

A BLP stub without any secondary source coverage from reliable sources, fails WP:BIO, WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. This actress was active 1995-2004, with no new sources since. Her name is worth a mention on articles covering the films she starred in, but there is not nearly enough for a standalone BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC) SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject here has "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature", namely Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp which was "the top-selling U.S. pornographic film of 2003." She recieved a lot of the same attention that Snoop recieved from this film, since she & Snoop were both nominated for a 2004 AVN Award for "Best Non-Sex Performance, Film or Video" from this movie. The subject here therefore meets the PORNBIO inclusion standard. Note: I personally do not believe that this old AfD settled these types of issues properly & permanently, since not that many people actually participated in that old AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guy1890, Starred in various notable pornos so is notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She actually starred in two, not one, TWO iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster features; Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp and Fashionistas. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails PORNBIO. She was in two blockbusters movies but little evidence that she starred in them and the fact of the matter is she didn't. The lead roles of Fashionistas were played by Belladonna, Taylor St. Claire, Rocco Siffredi, and Manuel Ferrara. She played a journalist in Snoop's movie that interviewed him but only had a solo scene (masturbation only). The only star of that movie was Snoop. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy1890, no one has commented on her as having "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature". The notability of the "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" is not inherited automatically by actors. There is no evidence that this person contributed to the iconic, groundbreaking or blockbusting qualities of the movie, let alone independently published commentary on it. No independent coverage of the subject in relation to that movie after ten years.
Davey2010, notability is not inherited. The amount of sourceable material (her involvement) is no more than is appropriate to list very briefly on the articles on the notable pornos. The complete sourceable material is already present at Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp.
Rebecca1990, notability is not inherited. There is no independent coverage connecting this person to these films. Fashionistas doesn't even mention this actor.
This person fails the notability guidelines, and there is negligible biographical content. It cannot be considered a biography, and as the person has moved on, ten years ago, it is very unlikely that there will be new material coming. The very few bits of old information on this person are not the basis for a BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The notability of the 'iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature' is not inherited automatically by actors." The problem with that line of thinking is that it runs afoul of the current ENTERTAINER standard, which has very similar wording ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions") to the PORNBIO standard. If you don't think that someone "starred" in a movie that they were nominated for a non-sex role in, then fine, but one can't just make up one's own inclusion criteria & apply it to Wikipedia articles. Guy1890 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:ENTERTAINER, another section of WP:BIO, is also foul of our WP:BLP standards. At best, these low threshold indicators are good for new topic on which further source is predicted. These weak indicators are particularly inappropriate for cases like this that have been silent for years. Maintaining a BLP on someone who might have been becoming notable, but didn't, is particularly offensive to WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with views expressed by Morbidthoughts & SmokeyJoe. Finnegas (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2014 (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) 00:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While she starred in some clearly notable films, she does not inherit that notability, and I don't see anything notable outside of them.LM2000 (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Subtropical-man (talk) (en-2) 19:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She did star in two "big" movies. She has had a very long porn career. She also tried mainstream tv mainly The Voyeur. It shows she does have some notability even if not to big.Stepojevac (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. This has no place on the site. Going a bit out-of-process here in the interest of academic integrity, but undelete if need be. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of rape victims from modern history

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

Recently created unsourced list is a prime target for WP:BLP violations and victimization and with no criteria for inclusion. Delete Secret ^account 02:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP issues. --Rs chen 7754 02:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a bucket of salt if I can. No, just no. Disclosure per the sandwich below -- KTC (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a honeypot for serious BLP issues and re-victimizing victims. It's not possible to make an exhaustive list of rape victims of the modern era, nor is being the victim of rape usually a notable thing in the sense that we use "notable". For most people who are already notable for something else, plunking them down in a list as "a victim of rape" - even if there's a source for that - as if that's somehow a defining characteristic of their existence, is demeaning. Being a rape victim carries a stigma in most modern societies, and WP:BLPCAT reminds us that "caution should be used with [content categories and lists] that suggest a person has a poor reputation." Disclosure: Secret asked my opinion of this list on IRC before filing this AfD. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fluffernutter. And fast. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly almost a G10 (but not quite).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fluffernutter and the disgust with which fictional rapes (i.e something generally done for entertainment purposes such as an incident on a police procedural show) would be considered in the same area as real life incidents. I'd also go so far as to and admonish the creator to consider the sort of atmosphere they are cultivating with their edits. Disclosure: Secret also asked my opinion of this list via an IRC channel before filing this AfD. Nick (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Anyone wishing to merge is of course welcome to do so as a normal editorial action. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zev Bellringer

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

This does not establish notability independent of Lexx through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Major character from cult TV series; at minimum merge to Lexx#The_crew, possibly break out into separate article on characters. I'm not sure what "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article" has to do with it - that's not how Wikipedia works. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - principal character in a major long-running internationally distributed TV series - masses of precedents. ~~NB - it's fiction - "real-world"?~~ (I see where this comes from). Eustachiusz (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2014 (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) 16:33, 18 January 2014 (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) 01:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lexx#The crew. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, though she does get many scattered mentions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kristiaan Yeo

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support for WP:N. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2014 (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) 00:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Grainger

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support, independent support. References are press releases, quotes, linkedin, etc. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:16, 18 January 2014 (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) 01:49, 26 January 2014 (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) 00:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Jai Lal Ji Ubhi

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. I can find nothing at JSTOR, GScholar, GBooks etc I've also tried offline works by authors such as Khushwant Singh without success. Perhaps he is revered in the locality but the one source given is as likely to be an amateur commemorative publication as anything else. I've not been able to check for Punjabi sources. Sitush (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source with little information available. Decidedly fails the "sources" test for WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gm545 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a Punjabi biography of Baba Jai Lalji Ubhi; http://books.google.com/books?id=NDc9HAAACAAJ. --Soman (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there is a Gurudwara named after him~(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baba_Jai_Lal_Ji_Gurdwara.jpg), seems notable. --Soman (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2014 (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) 01:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prowl (application)

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

promotional article for company that is not yet notable, never having released a product. Sourced entirely to mere notices, press releases, an a list of companies in WP. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, hang on! This article is richly sourced! It's got sixteen citations of www.crunchbase.com/company/prowl alone. (For one assertion, it even cites this twice. Is this thorough sourcing, or what?) And the CrunchBase page looks very academic, with its own list of sourced assertions. More specifically, they're all sourced directly to getprowl.com. Yes, what DGG says. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Hoary, whose sarcasm, though appropriate and wide-ranging, sadly lacks a joke about their "100,000 beta subscribers." I won't upstage by including one. Seriously, there's nothing in the newspapers about this company, let alone more substantial reliable sources. Some kind of props for the publicity photo of the founder, though, really.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complete the set: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Mendy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough and too promotional, as expected from an article sourced from press releases and primary sources. Too soon for an article at this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Environment One Corporation

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

product catalog for non notable company DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 26 January 2014 (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) 00:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:TNT. Entirely sourced from its own web pages and the SEC filings of its parent company, which is itself notable, but that doesn't necessarily make every acquisition of theirs notable. E/One was only traded on NASDAQ before its acquisition, which doesn't impart a presumption of notability. If someone wants to further research this and prove WP:CORPDEPTH for E/One itself, I'm willing to revisit my opinion. Unfortunately, even the acquisition info is sourced from a press release. Alternatively one could prove that the E/One-branded products (PCP apparently still uses this brand) pass WP:GNG. A quick search in Google Books didn't find anything that might be useful in that direction: I only found some passing mentions of E/One. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete the article is masquerading as a product catalog with a complete lack of third party sources. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlise Munoz

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

~~Not nearly enough biographical information for a biographical article. Should be redirected to something like Marlise Munoz case. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 00:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Since the article has been moved to Death of Marlise Munoz, the nomination is no longer operative, as my concerns have been more than satisfied. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 12:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article definitely needs expansion. But as to the title, we have precedence with the Jahi McMath article which is significant for very similar reasons to this one, but also contains very little biographical information. Funcrunch (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This case sets a very strong legal precedent that Texas law (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/HS/2/H/166/B/166.049) addressing life support for pregnant women is not applicable in cases of brain death. This case has received huge attention including coverage by New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/us/pregnant-and-forced-to-stay-on-life-support.html?_r=1) and Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595028-rare-case-rouses-passions-among-pro-choice-and-pro-life-alike-brain-dead-and-pregnant) We also had a similar case from California (Jahi McMath). Nevertheless If people feel strongly about it, this article can be renamed "Marlise Munoz Case."Preetikapoor0 (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm seeking ... having it renamed to focus on the case, not the person. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Good.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to focus on the case or delete. As it stands, the article clearly fails WP:BLP1E. Jonathunder (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it if necessary. Don't delete it. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has been moved to Death of Marlise Munoz. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 04:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'm withdrawing the nomination. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 12:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely set to become a major rep. rights/bioethics case. This isn't me crystalling - it's reliable sources predicting it. Anyhow, it's far surpassed the ridiculously low standard that the WP community usually likes to use for events, especially when they're missing white women or murders in Israel. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - An important case; a notable case. Keep under the new title "Death of ...". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open University of Switzerland

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

Non-notable institution -- fails WP:GNG. Article (which is advert-like) is sourced only to the institution's website and an advertising website with no evidence of credibility. Google search turned up a couple more advertisements, but no credible independent sources. Note: Websearching is complicated by fact that "Open University" and "Switzerland" occur together rather often in connection with other unrelated topics. Orlady (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notoble per WP:ORG. Does not have independent reliable sources. Appears more like an advertisement. Audit Guy (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a problem. It is usually relatively easy to tell if conventional universities have a real existence. It can be much more difficult for an purely online university, There are a number of rather dubious physical as well as online institutions in Switzerland, presumably because of some legal loophole. The licensing by the Swiss government is a business license, not an educational accreditation, The listing by the various professional organizations is sufficiently convincing to me to indicate real existence. I notice the description on the university's web page, offering a curriculum leading to both a MBA and a doctorate in a single year. By the usual standards, this would represent a diploma mill, but there are fewer standards in online education, where I suppose it is conceivable that an individual might mange to do that. . The number of students is claimed, not proven; ditto for faculty. There seems to be no firm evidence anyone has ever completed any of its programs. .

I can understand our reluctance to cover schools like this as if they were conventional colleges, or reputable nonconventional ones. If kept, perhaps the best thing to do is to add some more of the information from their web site. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The only source cited to indicate that this entity is licensed in Switzerland is the entity's own website. The fact that an entity has a website on which it posts a claim of government recognition establishes neither notability nor credibility. --Orlady (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

following the links there, the recognition such as it is, as well as the listing on the subject-oriented sites, seems to be real enough--it is also meaningless academically. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the "Open University" website does link to a government website where the corporate entity A.B.M.S. Education Group (not "Open University of Switzerland") is listed as a registered business (along with numerous other business entities, like Absolut Balance Pilates Fitness Studio) and where a laudatory "description" (obviously written by the A.B.M.S. Education Group) is reproduced. Appearance on a list of registered businesses is nothing near the kind of independent coverage needed to meet the general notability guideline, much less an indication that this is a "university" that meets the standards of WP:ORG. --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If kept, this article would look like an attempt at using Wikipedia as an avenue for advertising. Audit Guy (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This website is a business register by the municipality of Zug to which any local business can submit their own entry. This is meaningless in terms of notability. Sandstein 19:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think the only question is whether this is a notable diploma mill or a non-notable diploma mill. But it clearly is not a serious or respected institution. A serious university whose courses are in English would not have an FAQ written in broken English. Universities that offer a one-year dual MBA/PhD program are not serious especially if they have an FAQ that contradicts this explicitly. Pichpich (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider to be a nonnotable diploma mill, like the vast majority of red-linked entities listed on List of unaccredited institutions of higher education (and many more that advertise themselves on the Internet, but don't appear on that list). The reason this institution doesn't appear on that list yet is that we don't even have a reliable source to affirmatively state that it lacks accreditation/approval/authorization. --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article contains no reliable third-party coverage as required by WP:GNG. Anything can call itself a "university" in Switzerland, because of virtually non-existent regulation particularly in certain cantons including Zug. This is an online education business like very many others and with no apparent distinguishing features. The art. 24 VZAE registration it claims to have is a routine registration required for acceptance as a school for certain bureaucratic purposes related to the admission of foreign students to Switzerland, but no indication of any importance, and little or no indication of quality. I can't imagine why a purely online school would even need such a registration, except to suggest an official status it hasn't got. Its "registration number" is its commerce register number, required by any Swiss business. Sandstein 20:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with DDG that this article is problematic and that it's credibility is questionable, however, I must fall into the delete camp as there is no solid reference for it being an accredited educational institution and it fails to meet the other guidelines if looked at in terms of WP:SIGCOV or WP:ORG. Mkdw ^talk 21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree with what you said about manythings, lets start with diploma mill, I can give you a link where you can get an MBA from Manchester Metropolitan University or University of university of derby and many other Universities in 5-6 months and without Bachelor degree, are you interested to see? so an MBA or DBA in one year is not a diploma Mill, and regarding the Name Open University of Switzerland, its 100% legal by Swiss law and I asked a Prof. in Law from Zurich and he said its 100% legal and he is teaching in Zurich University I don't want mention his name her, but can mention if needed. ABMS is officially registered to be a teaching Institute (please check www.zefix.admin.ch). so I don't see any reason for delete, otherwise we must delete half of the universities in Europe because they offer 6 months MBA or 1 year DBA. --Markos200 (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is inconceivable that any institution with recognized accreditation will grant both a MBA and DBA degree in one year. A typical DBA doctorate degree alone will take anywhere between 2 - 4 years to complete for full and part-time studies, and this includes distance learning programs. In any event this article entry does not have any verifiable independent sources for it to be kept. Audit Guy (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zefix.admin.ch is the Swiss commerce register. All corporations must register there, and they can register whatever they want as their purpose, including teaching. This register entry is essentially self-published and of no relevance concerning notability. Besides, the register entry tells us that there is only one person associated with this corporation, a Syrian national, and that the corporation has only the legal minimum capital of CHF (=USD) 20.000, all of which aren't exactly clear signs of notability. The other arguments by Markos200, whose edits are only to articles about Swiss private teaching businesses of sometimes questionable notability, do not address the problems raised in this discussion. Sandstein 13:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rescale

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

"inadequate evidence for notability. and "an undisclosed sum of funding from" (several very prominent, named, and linked investors) sourced only to the company site is pure promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

investment is noted on Jeff Bezos' personal investment site http://www.bezosexpeditions.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon345345 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in Newsbank or ProQuest but a couple of PR Newswire things, which obviously mean nothing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched Techcrunch which covers such start-ups in plenty detail (a site which DGG might consider too niche for WP:CORPDEPTH), but even there I couldn't find anything about Rescale, so probably not notable enough for Wikipedia at the moment. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Company details and some select investors mentioned at https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/rescale and https://angel.co/rescale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon345345 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakir Naghiyev

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

With a Google scholar h-index of only 8 [35] in a high-citation discipline, he does not pass WP:PROF#C1 and there is no evidence of passing any other notability criterion either. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by arguments of nominator. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life in Colonial America

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

Seems to be a school project, falls under WP:NOTESSAY ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like a school assignment. Totally without sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly, as it's clearly a good faith contribution but by someone who doesn't quite understand the encyclopedia. Unsourced, far too broad-brush, just not appropriate. PamD 15:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess the good news is that we should be hearing from a campus ambassador or professor shortly. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt News

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

Article provides no evidence of notability Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes, it does, see the circulation figues (daily with 26,500 is notable). The fact that it unsourced is another issue, but not grounds for deletion. --Soman (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's unclear what newspaper, if any, this article refers to. The first revision, which is identical to the current one barring an unsubstantiated claim of affiliation with The International Herald Tribune and some copyediting, links to niletube.com as the official website. "Nile Tube News" gets nine hits on Google, while the website looks amateur and has no about page. Daily News Egypt, which was affiliated with the IHT, has its own article. —Neil 21:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The supposed owner, Small Business Associates Group, gets only three hits on Google: this article and two mentions of a company in Kentucky. —Neil 06:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, you did this search in English only, I suppose? --Soman (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I was lazy and decided not to, since I assumed that a company that owned a notable English newspaper would be mentioned somewhere in English. But since you asked, I just tried some searches on possible Arabic translations and came up with nothing. —Neil 03:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an uncited, unverified circulation figure does not notability make. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art Carden

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

Non notable assistant professor. No books, A small number of articles, h index=7, and the most cited paper cited only 40 times -- a paper for which he was the junior author [36]) , 21, 11 citations, DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for doing the research on his academic notability. I wrote all of the original Wikipedia article. I think his notability arises from a conjunction of his academic achievement and the fact that he's been widely published in popular media, including having a Forbes column, appearing in video interviews, plus publications in many libertarian news and media outlets. I would agree that purely on the strength of academic publications, he would be non-notable (as of now). Vipul (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a pop economist he hasn't yet notched up enough cites on GS. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even considering the handful of media appearances, he doesn't yet pass WP:PROF in my opinion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Mountain School}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Fantastic Film Festivals Federation}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grupo Rush}}