Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 23: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:05, 23 June 2014

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 June	24 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wajam

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ting

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

Not notable. Few internet sources, with the vast majority pointing back to this article. Article makes/made claims which cannot be verified. Lack of reliable sources. Gulbenk (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see comment below. Delete Fails to meet biographical notability criteria. Passing mention in the Manila Standard (reference 1). No mention of Ting in reference 2. Passing reference on a disallowed political blog (reference 3). No other significant coverage found in reliable third-party sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article previously failed to make clear, he's one of three deputy mayors of Taipei. (For what it's worth, of his two fellow deputy mayors, one has a bare-bones stub and the other is a redlink.) Plenty of Google hits in Chinese (丁庭宇), though I haven't had time to sift through and see how much is actually in-depth coverage rather than routine news. I expanded it a bit but I don't really have a good argument at the moment whether it's worth keeping or deleting. quant18 (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks quant18, I didn't realise he was the deputy mayor of Taipei. A Google search for "台湾丁庭宇" returns sufficient coverage in third party sources to establish notability. There is an in depth analysis of his finances by Apple Daily (Taiwan) here, in depth coverage in this Wuhan news report and another article with significant coverage here. FWIW he also has an entry on Baidu. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as deputy mayor of Taipei.--TM 12:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Language barriers are always a problem (my original search originally showed several people named Timothy Ting), but as a deputy mayor for the capital of Taiwan, plus coverage in several reliable sources, he's notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:39, 7 July 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 Age UK. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Paterson

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

I am not convinced of the notability of the person or of the position of "Internet Champion" DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the three reliable sources present in the article, there is coverage in Age UK (different article), Wired, CWU, Channel 4, Slough Observer. "Internet Champion" is a term coined by Age UK, a notable UK based charity derived from Help the Aged that has run in Britain for decades and widely known in schools. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question to be asked is: Would the man-in-the-street, upon reading about this "Internet champion", be interested to find out more about him? If the answer is Yes then the article should be retained. The question of the "notability" of a person is highly subjective. If no consensus is reached as to whether Keith Paterson's being crowned "Internet Champion" by a well-established and highly-reputable institution such as Age UK be deleted, I suggest that the article be preserved. Peminatweb (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally feel inspired when I hear about older people that achieve even when what they achieve is an basic looking text based website. I don't think it is a relevant question if people would want to know more (I was pleased juat to hear of an older guy that was getting on with stuff) ... but yes I did. I read that he was deaf and went straight to a search on "Keith Paterson deaf". Anyway, that's the sentimental vote. The page only got 67 views last month. Gregkaye (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because it's inspirational, doesn't mean it's notable. Lacks notoriety. My father was inspirational too. WP:BIO. sig1068 — Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it does satisfy WP's guidelines on Notability which states, inter alia: the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. Unquote. Peminatweb (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. 2 of the keep !votes amount to ILIKEIT, and do not constitute a policy-based assertion of notability. The sources cited in the other keep are merely promotional or local coverage of the event, and not indicative of notability. Please note that the "wired-gov-uk" source is not Wired UK but a press release site. The deletes are a bit short hand in their comments, but do point out the essential problem here - lack of independent reliable sources to support the subject's notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally agree that Wired-Gov can be considered a press release site in the same manner as Crunchbase and PRWeb. Bear in mind that practically anyone anywhere can go to a commercial PR service and say just about whatever they want, but a public sector body has to have some form of accountability, and has no need for self promotion because I would assume it would not be in their interests to do so. I can't see any mention of the site on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, which I would have assumed to be the case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I think that the award itself probably has enough coverage to be notable, and material on Paterson as a recipient of said award could be merged into such a hypothetical article. If I have time later today I will create such a stub. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:15, 5 July 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of enough consensus for "Keep" (the other Keeps are indeed rather WP:ILIKEITish without producing concrete sources that would help the cause), I'm happy to go for second choice with a merge / redirect to Age UK per WP:BIO1E. The topic of "Internet Champions" (hey, I didn't choose the name!) is I feel of encyclopaedic importance, even if the individual award recipients is tenuous. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to see the requisite coverage needed to establish notability. In terms of usability of "wired-gov-uk" noted above, it's a press release. That it is from government doesn't somehow make it not a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: as per User:Ritchie333, to Age UK as described in WP:BIO1E. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:15, 15 July 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. The notability or lack thereof is not immediately clear but there are reasonable arguments on both sides. Certainly, being a losing candidate in a primary election is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN, but there is some merit to the claim that his business career has generated enough courage to make Mr Avellone notable otherwise. When both sides present reasonable arguments, and the community is divided as it is here, the result must be that no consensus can be declared. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Avellone

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

The previous deletion discussion was closed an no consensus, in part because there was a desire not to rush to deletion as Avellone was part of a breaking news event (the 2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial election). As Avellone failed to make the primary ballot, this is no longer an issue. The references provided do not show that the subject of the article is notable beyond this one event, as he has not received significant coverage outside of this context (the only references in the article are a paragraph in Time Magazine and a quote in an article about HMOs). Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If he actually made the ballot it would be appropriate to keep the article, but he didn't. It's either going to be Steve Grossman or Martha Coakley who wins the democratic nomination in September, they are well known. If Joseph Avellone made the ballot and was well known like Grossman and Coakley it would be more appropriate to keep but he was unable to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyjacks (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Surprised by the nomination. Easy pass for WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE as far as I see. A lot of the coverage about him comes from the last 18 months while running for governor, sure, but he's got an impressive resume that removes ONEEVENT as a factor. Being notable for only WP:ONEEVENT isn't the same as receiving some coverage for a number of different things before getting a whole lot of coverage for one thing in particular (invoking ONEEVENT doesn't negate press from that one big event, it just requires some evidence that the person has received coverage for other stuff, too, even if not as substantial). Make all the arguments you want about individual items in the following list not making him notable, the fact of the matter is there appear to be one or more sources about him for each of these -- at least as far as I can tell. These, in combination with the recent election, makes him an easy keep: (1) Selectman (and Chairman of the Board of Selectmen) in Wellesley, Massachusetts; (2) Executive VP at PAREXEL; (3) health care advisor to Paul Tsongas during 1992 Presidential run; (3) health care advisor to John Kerry during 2004 Presidential run; (4) Profiled in Time Magazine in 1979 as one of "50 Faces for the Future"; (5) COO for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts; (6) CEO of Veritas Medicine; (7) Board of Directors at Boston Heart Diagnostics. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Avellone has done all of those things he has not received significant coverage for any of them. The only sources that mention his tenure as a Selectmen are articles about the gubernatorial election. The source for his time at PAREXEL and Veritas Medicine is the PAREXEL's website, a non-independent source that does nothing to show notability. The source that covers his work for the Kerry campaign is an article about another gubernatorial candidate that mentions Avellone only in passing. The source for his work at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts is an article about HMOs that only contains two small quotes from Avellone. There is no source in the article his work at Boston Heart Diagnostics nor is it even mentioned in the article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As a general rule, I don't like citing common outcomes and other such shortcuts in deletion discussions, but that's admittedly what I was trying to do: point to a series of job titles as not inherently notable, but generally suggestive that significant sources exist (i.e. why high schools are typically kept -- not because they have special properties, but because we can assume sources will exist). I'd be a hypocrite if I stuck to that line of argument when called into question, though. So here are the sources. PS: Not one of these is connected to the recent election (I only pulled articles pre-2013). All seem reliable (most from the Boston Globe). Many are negligible indeed. Many are not. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Selectman: Globe reports he's chosen as vice chairman (negligible mention), 1991 Globe article on Selectman win, speaking at somewhat more length to the Globe as selectman about David Locke in 1992
- Blue Cross - speaking for the company in 1996 about drug benefits in the Boston Globe, talking to the Boston Globe in 1992 about how much they pay for smoking-related claims, commenting about Boston City Hospital for Blue Cross in the Boston Globe 1992, 1996 Knight Ridden Tribute article about seniors protesting a rate hike, Boston Globe mentions his promotion in 1994, says he'll be the "company's number two executive with responsibility for the core business", another from the Boston Globe in 1996 about Medex hikes, 1994 Boston Globe article about Blue Cross buying doctors' practices, another Globe story on medex from 1996, Bay State Banner article mentions him as VP in 1994, 1991 Globe article quotes him, primary source in 1994 Globe article about some report, and again in 1996..., and again in 1996, and again in 1996, but longer
- Veritas: 2000 Boston Globe, 2006 Boston Globe, 2002 Drug Week article quotes him speaking as CEO,
- Parexel: negligible indeed, but at least secondary source verified in this financial report via US Fed News Service, also this 2010 Health and Beauty Close-Up magazine article that quotes him for the company, Wireless News article from 2010 quotes him speaking for Parexel, China Weekly News in 2012,
- Advisor to Tsongas: 1991 Globe article spends several paragraphs talking about him, also mentioning him as a selectman, 1992 Washington Post article talks about him in connection to Tsongas, says he "helped shape Tsongas's comprehensive health care plan"
  - As a spokesman for various companies he was quoted numerous times. However, none of these passing mentions demonstrate previous notability. Also, although the subject need not be the main topic of the source material for it to be considered significant coverage, it is interesting to note that in the two decades worth of articles provided, Avellone is not the main topic of any of them. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's break it down: There's no question he's notable for the recent election, right? And there have been many pieces written specifically about him for that, right? ONEEVENT, however, tells us that in such cases you have to consider if it's the event that should be covered instead (and, with elections, that's usually the case). It does not say that when a lot of someone's notoriety comes from one event, all of those sources about that event don't count and the person must start from scratch showing sources about other things. No, if it can be shown the person has also received significant coverage about other things, then ONEEVENT simply doesn't apply and we're back to the GNG or BASIC. Additional sources that are only about him are not necessary. See: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." He is the primary source for or a prominent subject (even if not the main subject) of many of the articles cited above. That he is not the sole subject of any of them isn't a deal-breaker.
    - Rewording: The question is, looking at all of the coverage about this person for all purposes (but excluding brief mentions and primary sources), is the coverage significant? Span time? Independent? The answer is yes. Next question: is it all for one event? No. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure where you see "significant coverage about other things". The non-election sources do not provide any in-depth coverage. Most of them just give his name and his position with the company he worked for at the time, which is far from significant coverage. The only significant coverage he ever received comes from the 2014 election and therefore ONEEVENT does apply. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm. Well. A few of the above are minor mentions -- the ones I grabbed early in my search in response to your claim that the only articles that mention his various jobs are from election coverage. But anybody can click them or do their own research to see you're not fairly/accurately characterizing them (i.e. that "most of them just give his name and his position"). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Face it: He didn't make the ballot for 2014 and the Governor's race will mostly be focusing on either Steve Grossman, Martha Coakley, Charlie Baker or Mark Fisher (who actually could make the ballot). I say delete the article and "IF" Joseph Avellone runs in 2018, then maybe wikipedia can reconsider. Not all selectman in Massachusetts can have their own Wikipedia article even if they helped a U.S. Senator run for President. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Face it? Ok, I've faced it. (I don't live in MA, btw). But Wikipedia doesn't actually care about job titles or elections or who runs for what. There are specific notability criteria that give us a shortcut to notability (e.g. win an Academy Award means lots of coverage, so you only need to know someone won an Academy Award). He didn't win, so indeed he does not receive one of those shortcuts/free passes. No argument there, to be sure. So it falls back to WP:GNG/WP:BIO just like most other people's Wikipedia pages. The question is whether there are sufficient sources talking about him in any capacity (combined; having established it's for multiple reasons already) sufficient to pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO. I find it hard to imagine an actor, musician, or baseball player with the same level of sourcing being deleted, so I fail to see why this person would be. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It occurs to me you basically just reiterated your delete vote rationale and I responded by reiterating a bunch of stuff I've already said, too. Here's hoping we get some new blood in the discussion as it's presently heading for no consensus. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Put it this way if Joseph Avellone is not known to everyone in Massachusetts just some on Wikipedia and when he ran for Governor probably. Now he's not noticeable unless he runs for something else later. Even if he might pass something here he still doesn't need an article now because what good will it do. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia doesn't keep or delete articles based on what good it does or based on how many people know about something. Wikipedia doesn't care about state politics or what someone means to people of a certain state. It doesn't care what state anybody is in, editor or subject. The question of whether something is notable is a technical term that provides quasi-objective criteria precisely to avoid all of that. The question is: "has this person been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources?" Someone can run for this or that, but if sources aren't there it doesn't matter. Likewise someone can fail at everything he/she does but if there are plenty of sources, it doesn't matter. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good time to point out that ~~Ponyo~~ Plyjacks voted to deleted at the previous AFD purely because a pet article of his was also deleted [1]. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 22:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Sort of what I had redacted from my own comments before (arguing in an opposite way at the mark fisher afd). But I think you mean Plyjacks, not Ponyo (they are not the same afaik, anyway). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided above show Avellone passes the general notability guideline. Sure, they probably need to be put in the article, but that is an editorial concern that doesn't affect whether or not he is notable. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 07:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been delete the first time, and nothing has changed except he didn't make the primary. I'm still not seeing significant coverage in RS. GoldenRing (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he would be barely notable even without losing the nomination, but much of what's available online, as noted above, is not exactly flattering. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The sources provided above by Avellone show that the subject is not just known for the election. I am not convinced that that pre-campaign sources provide "significant coverage about other things," but combined with his candidacy, he passes WP:GNG. (i.e. neither his candidacy or his earlier work would make him notable alone, but together they do). --Enos733 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Everything I can see is passing mention. Maybe he has a lot of passing mentions and minor accomplishments, but I really don't see that ONE magic thing that makes it obvious that he passes WP:GNG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:40, 18 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:POLITICIAN and a bunch of passing mentions of the "Company spokesperson X said . . ." do not give him notability since the significant coverage is of the company, not the spokesperson. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Rhododendrites. Gregkaye (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not pass notability. Low level doctor and politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See this article^WebCite (titled "Democrat Joe Avellone's campaign for governor endorsed by five Norfolk County officials") from The Republican, this article^WebCite (titled "Democrat Joseph Avellone 'not your average Joe'") from The Enterprise, and this article^WebCite (titled "Joseph Avellone, a Democratic candidate for governor, has Central Mass. tie") from Telegram & Gazette, this article^WebCite (titled "Mass. Governor Hopeful Avellone Banking On Business Experience") and this article^WebCite (titled "2 candidates, Juliette Kayyem and Joseph Avellone, miss cut for governor at Democratic convention") from the Associated Press, this article^WebCite (titled "Gov. candidate Joseph Avellone lays out 3-point jobs plan") from The Herald News, and this article^WebCite (titled "Avellone: Lowell a model for helping at-risk youths") from The Sun.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Port Place Shopping Centre to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:59, 4 July 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. To be treated as an uncontested WP:PROD, as nobody has commented on the nomination. Sandstein 11:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a national movement, as far as I can tell it no longer exists, I cannot find a single reference to this specific group, and the article needs alot of work. GiraffeBoy (talk) 20:37, 15 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:09, 23 June 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliStar 2

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

Does not meet notability standards (WP:GNG), could not find any mention of subject in a reliable source. Also oppose merging unless merged information is verifiable with reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a shame, the article is pretty well written, but I can find no independent sources.... Sailsbystars (talk) 01:17, 23 June 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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universum Studio GmbH Germany

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

Reasonably declined as a speedy candidate. However, this is a blatant hoax (just not quite blatant enough for G3). Here's the real Universal Germany. Highlight communication (the alleged parent) makes no mention of owning such a subsidiary. The link in the article is to a Serbian site pretending to be German. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Also, note German Broadcasting Company which also warrants further investivation. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether or not it is a hoax and whether or not it is notable, the current article does not have any sources and is therefore Original Research. CorporateM (Talk) 03:20, 24 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Force Collection

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

WP:GNG?? Müdigkeit (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:11, 15 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any usable references for it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 03:18, 27 June 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 Stephanie Plum. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visions of Sugar Plums

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

Long-unreferenced article about book that doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stephanie Plum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 23 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Research

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

Book doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS. Reads like an advertisement, only primary sources. Long-tagged for notability and references. Mikeblas (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:44, 15 June 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a special collection of papers. nothing inherently notable about it that I've been able to ascertain. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article originally contributed by an account which is blocked as a Sockpuppet. The title is rather general for searches, but I am finding nothing to indicate that it met the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 23 June 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. (WP:SNOW) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Comics

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

Only primary sources; no demonstration of notability. Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and delete~~ This is a fairly notable book in the comics world, but unless more can be said about it, it belongs in the article Scott McCloud. Shii (tock) 00:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book was reviewed in the New York Times by Garry Trudeau. Though I can't find the full review itself online, I did find a letter to the editor published by the NYT about the review, verifying that it was published. Snippets from the review are widely available online. The author's website also mentions reviews in the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times, and Publisher's Weekly. As the book was published 21 years ago, it is difficult to find sources, but I believe that the book is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Belief doesn't carry much; we need references from reliable third-party sources. -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book is incredibly influential and the sources are out there. I'm finding where it's been used as a source for various things but also where it's discussed in several peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, and books like this one and especially this book, which refers to it as groundbreaking. I'm adding them to the article as I speak. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source talks about how high profile it was when it released, and these books talk about educators using it in a classroom setting. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't emphasize enough how incredibly influential this is. (More sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good sources. I looked into this and discovered two serious, in-depth academic studies which discuss the book at length: The Language of Comics: Word and Image (University Press of Mississippi, 2007) and Comics and Culture: Analytical and Theoretical Approaches to Comics (Museum Tusculanum, 2000). There are apparently multiple chapters in both books that either build on or critique this book. I recommend keeping this article so that this can be expanded on. Shii (tock) 18:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - wondering if we can find sources for the similar work, Comics and Sequential Art? BOZ (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: this book is widely covered and cited by other sources. It floors me that someone would even try to get this deleted. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the last several comments; recommend withdrawal of nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 27 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Sara

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

Subject only had 1 to 3 episode-long guest appearances, very small film roles, and no significant coverage in any entertainment news/magazines articles or websites. While she did win a Young Artist Award for a guest role, that alone is not enough to merit notability (not everyone who wins that award has an article here) and there is no indication she has plans to return to acting anytime soon. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Child actress who doesn't achieve WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Lack of in-depth media coverage found in Google search (or in article). Roles were generally supporting/guest (note that the "co-starring" role in Always Greener wasn't the Australian show but an obscure 2001 thing that IMDb has almost no info about), and nothing that could be called innovative, cult, or iconic. Has not acted for several years, so she's unlikely to become more famous or get more coverage in the near future. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Former child actresses need to have achieved large scale notability to keep the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 30 June 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/Wajam}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Ting}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Paterson}}