Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 January	31 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pejibaye Town, Pejibaye District, Jiménez

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

No sources, could not verify using Google maps. Tal Brenev (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... it can also be found on the map under it's other names Pejivalle, Pejiballe, Pejivalle etc. User:cjgace(talk)22:23, 30 January 2014(UTC)

I looked it up on google maps under "Pejivalle, Pejiballe, Pejivalle" and still could not find anything. Tal Brenev (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try... https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pejibaye,+Cartago,+Costa+Rica&hl=en&sll=9.816667,-83.7&sspn=0.036874,0.055189&oq=Pejibaye+&hnear=Pejibaye,+Cartago,+Costa+Rica&t=m&z=14 Sorry. It's my first wiki article and I'm a peace corps volunteer here trying to fulfill our goals of getting my town on the map so to speak. I'll be adding more content and links today and over the next few days. Thanks for your help. User:cjgace(talk)22:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a link to the coordinates for the town of Pejibaye at the top of the wiki article. It's listed as "Pejivalle" not "Pejibaye" on Google maps, but both spellings can be used in the search feature to show the same town of Pejibaye in Cartago, Costa Rica. The page is almost complete, so please remove the deletion notice as we have sources and we have added the coordinates. Thanks! User:cjgace(talk) 03:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get the deletion notice removed? User:cjgace(talk) 11:10, 9 February 2014

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a verified inhabited location and those are usually considered notable. Stalwart111 12:27, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vevo Certified music videos

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

Poorly sourced fancruft; this is merely a "List of music videos with 100 million views on YouTube and the like". The fact that this is given out by a notable website does not matter in my opinion, it is a non-notable metric. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created the article following the outcome of a CFD for Category:Vevo Certified songs. There is a mention of the certification within the Vevo article. I agree that the list is merely WP:Fancruft with no real legitimate sourcing of artists/videos that receive this certification. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and its stepchild, WP:SINGLEVENDOR. It's a sales measure from a single entity measuring only that entity's distribution, neglecting the broader market. There are numerous streaming and download charts that do not have the same inherent bias.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non important list. List shows no significant aid in navigation to the related articles per WP:L. ///EuroCarGT 22:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an industry metric, and certainly not a neutral source of information and easily bent towards influence without knowing how they're exactly measured. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable award, and it does seem a bit like an advertisement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noel V. Lateef

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

Non-notable CEO. The only sources I can find on this person are blurbs from associated organisations, which lack independence. He has published widely but google scholar reports nothing with many citations and worldcat reports no book held by more than a 1000 libraries worldwide. It's possible that there are non-English sources I'm failing to find. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's case seems sound. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 31 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) 12:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:36, 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 delete. 28bytes (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Surgery and Bachelor of Chiropractic

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

The intent (and value) of this article is grossly unclear. The bulk of the article seems to refer to a degree program of only one education institution (University of Cape Coast), but it is unclear if that is the only institution which offers this degree. If not, the information about the institution should be removed, leaving almost no content; if so, the information should be included in the existing article on the institution, not in a standalone (stub) article concerning the degree. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the descriptive text in the lede ("Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery") is different than the page title ("Bachelor of Surgery and Bachelor of Chiropractic"), making it even less clear what this article is about. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the one reference for the page (to the above mentioned institution's web site), ostensibly to describe that school's program, is now a dead link. [Later] The correct link appears to be here, by name the program in the lede (not the one in the title).Dwpaul ^Talk 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete. I was just about to PROD this when you nominated. Tried to verify or find sources and found nothing. If it's about the degree mentioned in the title I don't think it exists anymore (if it ever did), if it's about the degree mentioned in the lede which Dwpaul found a source for it's already covered in University of Cape Coast which is noted as offering MBChB degrees. acb314 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, alas, and to add to the confusion, I believe ChB is intended to refer to the Bachelor of Chiropractic component~~, which is not in evidence at all on the school's Web site~~. So the page about the school seemingly requires some editing also (not only to remove the wikilink to this page if it is deleted). (The school page and this page were created by the same editor on the same day.) [Later] The Web site link above refers to the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degree using the short form (MB, Ch B), so it seems as if the B of Surgery is actually a degree in chiro?? What a mess. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's impossible to even tell what the name of this degree is - but fortunately it doesn't matter. It's not deserving of a freestanding article whatever it is. Props to the nominator for finding and nominating this mess. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There have been a few of these idiosyncratic degree programs brought to AfD, and none of them have made any credible claim to notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Corlett

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. This person has only had a significant role in one notable TV show: Dinosaur Train. The subject has apparently also appeared in a 2005 short called "Company Man", which doesn't appear to be notable. I'd be okay with redirecting to Dinosaur Train. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Went through AfD before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Corlett. The result of the previous discussion was no consensus. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 31 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) 12:23, 10 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the significant roles in two notable productions guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 21 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W. Michael Garner

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

promotional article for not particularly notable attorney, liting all his cases and speeches. The listings as best lawyers, etc., are the only possible sources for notability , and are not reliable. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a leading authority in the field of franchise law, the article on attorney W. Michael Garner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to its policies and guidelines. In addition to writing an authoritative three-volume legal treatise on franchise law, Garner has edited the American Bar Association's franchise law journal and franchise desk book. The Wikipedia article includes ISBN references and 20 links to reliable sources. Therefore, the article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 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) 12:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are sources, but they don't establish the subject's notability. Court cases do not prove the notability of the attorneys arguing them. I could probably buy a spot a "best lawyers" list, and I'm not a lawyer. The closest we get to notability is "his writings" being cited in a U.S. Supreme Court case. That could go toward establishing the writings' notability, but not his. And I can't find any sources online that do establish notability. Lagrange 613 04:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. As its author, I apologize for not including more sources. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I would appreciate any suggestions you may have for improving the article so it complies with Wikipedia's standards. I'm in the process of finding reliable third-party sources for W. Michael Garner's most important cases. As soon as I have the citations, I will add them to the article. In the meantime, I can assure you that it is not possible to buy a spot in the "Best Lawyers in America," the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Best Lawyers in America seems to have higher standards than other lists I've seen. But just because they claim to be "the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession" doesn't make it so. It seems comparable to Who's Who. Certainly not all or even most of its 50,000+ lawyers are notable. Lagrange 613 17:00, 2 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to satisfy Wikipedia standards regarding citations to reliable third-party sources, I added links to court decisions that have cited W. Michael Garner's writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to adding links to numerous court decisions that have cited W. Michael Garner's writings, I have added links to key court decisions throughout the attorney's career. The article now includes reliable sources to support W. Michael Garner's standing as a leading authority in the field of franchise law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Court decisions/records are unacceptable sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents are primary sources when the topic of the article is at issue in the case before the court. Here, court orders cite Garner's law journal articles to support points about cases that don't involve Garner. That makes them secondary sources; the journal articles are primary. But I still don't think it's enough to prove notability. Maybe if the cases were higher-impact, or if the orders' reasoning really turned on something Garner had written, but they aren't and they don't. If a few minor references to your journal articles established notability, WP:PROF would look very different. Lagrange 613 16:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the numerous citations on the page meet the requirements of WP:BIO, which requires person be subject of secondary sources (not quoted or something along those lines). Article sounds like WP:PROMO and likely some sort of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also, as MNWriter is a WP:SPA that has written this article almost entirely by him/herself, there is a WP:COI in voting here. The additional citations act only as a WP:MASK. mikeman67 (talk) 01:22, 4 March 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 21:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati X

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Fails on WP:BAND. Hitro talk 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 31 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) 12:24, 10 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:58, 20 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) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty

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

This seems entirely outside the project's scope. There do not seem to be that many articles on this project concerning subjects similar to this and it seems that very little of the people in this list have articles of their own. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about this list, for example? And this one? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, many of these pages do not seem like they're proper for Wikipedia, considering WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Unless the officer was notable, or the events regarding the death notable, then it doesn't seem like the list has its use on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article well sourced with a list of notable facts.User:Lucifero4
I don't see a list of every police officer in Singapore who died on duty is "a list of notable facts". It's a list of names of people who don't have their own articles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually the death of a policeman received large coverage in the news.User:Lucifero4
Keep. Police killings are extremely likely to be notable events, whether or not the individual victims are otherwise notable. Lists like this one are encyclopedic and appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:N and WP:V. After reading WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I do not see how it is even relevant here. Per WP:CSC, the individual members of a list do not have to be notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN. That none of the entries on the list are independently notable is explicitly *not* a criterion for list deletion. It's clear that "Police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject, and just as clear that "Police officers from city X killed in the line of duty" is notable. The criterion is that the entries on the list must be discussed by RS as a group. That's clearly the case here. There are a bunch of these articles, and every last one of them satisfies LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how "police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject thereby allowing people to produce lists covering every single law enforcement agency around the world and their brethren who died on duty.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it is according to LISTN, which notes that One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.. That this is the case for "police officers killed in the line of duty" is not hard to see:
Samuel Walker Professor of Criminal Justice University of Nebraska at Omaha (11 April 1993). Taming the System : The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950-1990: The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950-1990. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 32–. ISBN 978-0-19-536015-8.

Robert C. Wadman (2009). Police Theory in America: Old Traditions and New Opportunities. Charles C Thomas Publisher. pp. 104–. ISBN 978-0-398-08568-1.

James F. Pastor (12 December 2010). Terrorism and Public Safety Policing: Implications for the Obama Presidency. CRC Press. pp. 327–. ISBN 978-1-4398-1581-6.

There are many more such sources, and in JSTOR too, which I'm not bothering to link to. It seems to me to be a LISTN slam-dunk.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LISTN also says the event should be notable. Every single Singaporean cop's death on the job does not seem notable. It does get covered by the local press, as do many events, but these are people only notable for one thing it seems, and that is their death.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, it says exactly the opposite: Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. The individual items do not in fact need to be notable. This is a crucial element of LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But how is the group or set notable?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, as stated above and demonstrated by three of the multitude of sources available.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But none of those are about Singapore. And none of them are about being killed in the line of duty. And the fact that every death gets reported by the press does not count.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you see, you didn't ask me about Singapore at first. You said I do not see how "police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject and I produced sources to show that it was. Now if we're just talking about ones in Singapore, we are talking about "Lists of X of Y", where X="police officers killed in the line of duty" and Y="Singapore." WP:LISTN says There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. However, I will say that "policemen killed in the line of duty in Los Angeles," (which you did not nominate for deletion) satisfies LISTN all by itself. Singapore, being as notable a place as Los Angeles, seems to me to have as good a claim to satifying LISTN. And the fact that none of the sources are about police being killed in the line of duty is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the sources treat "police killed in the line of duty" as a group or set, and they're RS, so that makes the grouping notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a real stretch. And these few AFDs are me testing the waters because I really do not see how these lists meet the notability requirements, and simply saying "oh it's a list of two things" means that there's no rule so it's good to go is just complete bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a stretch at all, but good luck to you. I wish you'd bundled them, though. Perhaps you'll put a note at the top of each notifying the closer of the others, since clearly they all stand or fall together.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies LISTN. James500 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont particularly "agree" with the current set-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetPotatoSalad (talk • contribs) 10:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mosaic, dont listen to that trash. Its obvious that SweetPotatoSalad is another aforementioned sockpuppet of Ryulong (talk · contribs · logs). A thread was started on WP:AN/I for all his foolishness so he will be banned soon. I'ma Scoop! (talk)

I'ma Scoop! - Even a total and complete asshole can have an opinion which should be taken into account. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Wiki-star has realized I'm onto him and now he's socking and claiming I'm him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:07, 1 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Brandt

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

Two entries, neither of which are called 'Adam Brandt'. Boleyn (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per proposer. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plausible typo for either of the names, so would be perfectly OK as a redirect to either. This dab page offers a choice of the two plausible targets, does no harm, and may well help readers or editors making either mistake. Any editor linking to it will be alerted to the fact by the bot which chases up links to dab pages (forgotten name for the moment), and will know to fix it. PamD 13:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen a page that essentially just consisted of a See also section. I wish, in the spirit of WP:TWODABS, we could just pick one to redirect this to. Of two, Adam Bandt seems the better choice; "Brandt" is a common enough surname, whereas I don't think I've ever seen "Bandt" before. At that point, a hatnote to Adam Brand almost looks silly, though.

I really wish there were just a notable Adam Brandt we could write about. This Stanford professor is somewhat promising but may not meet WP:ACADEMIC. There's a college football player who could work if he goes pro, but that's a couple years away at best. And there's a British linguist, but he's less likely to meet ACADEMIC than the American. I'm tempted to just add a line to the effect of "Adam Brandt, a defensive end for the Southern Illinois Salukis football team, but without a mention of him there, that doesn't seem right either. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm wary to link to list articles, but I can't find any guidelines against the entry: Adam Brandt, American football player on List of 2004 Seattle Mariners draft picks. There is also Adam R. Brandt, who appears in the references section of 2 or 3 articles, e.g.g Alberta Taciuk process, but I can't see how that could be made a valid entry. Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 12 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, Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to propose as a rule, do not stretch similarities beyond the breaking point to justify having a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 19:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:41, 22 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. WP:G11 slakr^\ talk / 22:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CJD Feuerbach

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

Former German volley-ball club. No references. No evidence of any special notability. Fails all relevant notability guidelines Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References were added. The exactly same article is since years in the German language Wikipedia. And there is also a French Wikipedia version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf Jeremias (talk • contribs) 13:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The existiance of WP:OTHERSTUFF does not reflect on whether or not this article should be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable as winner of national championship and even European level championship. The nominator has not stated which guidelines are failed. I think WP:CLUB is met by the new sources. —Kusma (t·c) 12:23, 3 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) 12:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree K E E P - as Kusma justified before ^^ --Saviour1981 (talk) 08:57, 20 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CLUB refers to non-commercial organizations, not sport clubs. Criteria that would apply here is regular WP:ORGDEPTH. Based on that, there are no sources here that establish any depth or substantive coverage beyond list of victors from league. None of this establishes that there was significant coverage as required. mikeman67 (talk) 01:08, 4 March 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 deleted as WP:CSD#G11 Promotional DES ^(talk) 01:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libero.it

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTADVERTISING JMHamo (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS outside of the website itself. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure advertising of what appears to be non-notable. Probable promotion by someone with COI ES &L 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see notability, the article is promotional itself with marketing figures. ///EuroCarGT 22:56, 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 keep. Consensus has not changed in this case. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic Fate

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

Fails On WP:BAND. Article does not evidently demonstrate that this group is notable. Most of the links used in previous deletion discussions in support of keep votes are either dead or irrelevant to the subject and few includes interviews and trivial coverages. They have won the "Best Underground Band" award at the Citycell Channel-i Music Awards in 2005, not sure whether this award is notable. Hitro talk 19:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes both WP:BAND and WP:GNG, [1],[2], [3]. Citycell Channel-i Music Awards is arguably the biggest music award event in Bangladesh and receives extensive media coverage. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This band passes on WP:BAND only if the "Best Underground Band" award at the Citycell Channel-i Music Awards in 2005 is notable. Notability of this award should be established in this discussion. Sources confirming that they won this award is nugatory unless this award is notable. If they pass on any other criteria of WP:BAND then please point the criteria number in little elaborative manner. Hitro talk 21:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria 1, 5, 7, 9, 12. For the award, see the link posted below. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- As according to The Daily Star, the Citycell Channel-i Music Awards are "the biggest award ceremony of Bangladeshi music".[4]. And furthermore, Cryptic Fate is one of the most popular bands of Bangladesh. Their Facebook page alone has over 58,000 fans.--Bazaan (talk) 05:59, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny Alley

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

Concerns about the notability of this band. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 19:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are either from a social networking site (e.g. Myspace) or extremely weak. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 31 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) 12:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 04:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I suspect there is some notability here: you don't get signed to EMI for no reason. Still, I've been able to find nearly nothing to back up my suspicion that this is a potentially notable band disguised by a poor article. The best I could find is the statement "...they enjoy cult status" in this article. I'd be happy to change my vote if anyone finds more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 12 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. slakr^\ talk / 22:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Arctic Biology

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

This AfD is based on a discussion copied from the talk page that started after a PROD of the article by me. Once there was a serious objection by an editor who neither removed the PROD himself nor convinced me of the notability, AfD seemed like the best good-faith option.

PROD rationale:

Non notable research group. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.

Talk page discussion:

This article contains valid encyclopedic content describing scientific research programs of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. UAF isn't notable merely because it has "University" in its name. UAF has fallen behind UAA in enrollment in recent decades. What has kept UAF "on the radar" within Alaska has been its emphasis on scientific research, particularly in the fields of astrophysics, biological sciences and oceanography. IAB and the Geophysical Institute have been at the forefront of that research for most of the university's existence. Additionally, included amongst biological research but not mentioned in the article is the Large Animal Research Station, whose viewing area along Yankovich Road is a major Fairbanks-area tourist attraction. This falls within one of the pillars of UAF's mission statement, namely public service.

In summary, I reiterate that this is valid encyclopedic content relating to a notable entity. The real issue here is whether it belongs in its own article or somewhere else in the encyclopedia. There has been an ongoing problem of haphazard content forking in coverage of the University of Alaska. It should be obvious why, as there are far fewer warm bodies working on this sort of thing compared with, say, Disney or The Simpsons or South Park. I don't have time to fix everyone's messes for them. I barely have time for this, but the mad deletionist bent I've witnessed across Wikipedia lately resembles spiteful trashing of the contributions of certain editors (mostly long gone and therefore not in a position to defend their contributions) more than anything else. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on wikipedia is defined in terms of our notability guideline which talks about evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and secondary sources. This stub has neither. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care to repeat myself. However, since it's obvious that you're not listening, let me repeat myself. You're proposing to diminish the encyclopedic value of coverage of the University of Alaska Fairbanks because you have a bug up your ass about the construction of this particular article. UAF isn't notable merely because it has "University" in its name. UAF is notable because it does things which makes it notable. Biological sciences research ranks right near the top of the things which UAF does which makes it notable. Is there a problem with understanding this? The notability guideline isn't going to read Wikipedia content and deduce that it lacks credibility. Real people out in the real world, however, are going to do just that, so it's necessary to keep them in mind, too. When coverage of the University of Alaska has devolved into a series of POV forks about its hockey teams and student governments, because people who obviously don't know any better and don't care to know any better have trashed the rest of the coverage in the quest of satisfying their deletionist hard-ons, don't come crying to me to fix it. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

Please remember that, as a policy and one of the Five Pillars, civility is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Alaska Fairbanks – I see an issue here of whether coverage of a particular subject should properly reflect the subject, or only reflect what editors feel like working on. As outlined in greater detail above, the reality is that research conducted under IAB and other research in hard sciences ranks very high within the context of UAF's notability. That editors would rather work on expanding coverage of UAF's hockey team is no excuse to push coverage of UAF even further in that direction, which is exactly what will happen if you go about deleting content such as this. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect is a great idea. Maybe what we need is a University of Alaska Fairbanks research centres article which we can merge and redirect this, Arctic Region Supercomputing Center, Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research and International Arctic Research Center to, without deleting any content or breaking any links? There maybe Alaska Native Language Archive could be merge and redirected to Alaska Native Language Center as well? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 31 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) 12:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most famous research institutes on the subject on a world-=wide basis. I think such high importance is a requirement for research institutes like this, and I think this is one of the rare cases where the requirement is met. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable independent source that calls it [O]ne of the most famous research institutes on the subject? I can't find one. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per lack of substantial covereage in reliabel independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note 432,000 hits on Google News. 64,000 in Google Books. Nearly 5K in Google Scholar. A lot of it is in the credentials of associates, so it is possible this institution is known best by its members, but I believe there is some substantial coverage as well. Eg even the Toolik Field station got coverage from across the country: Scientists at Toolik Field Station investigate a warming Arctic-NJ News Anarchangel (talk) 22:02, 28 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Earlier today, I just closed another AfD on some minor Pokemon character as a merge. If this is a case of WP:IAR, so be it, but I refuse to believe we're writing an encyclopedia which considers some dumb Pokemon character to be more notable than a scientific research station. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 3 March 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Brown

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

Does not appear to be noteworthy enough for an article. A previous version was deleted via AfD, but the new version does not appear to solve the problems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage of her in reliable sources. What does exist seems to be local. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-written and well-sourced article with a wide-ranging variety of references. I specifically noted a [Rose Bird] commendation in a 1979 California judicial ruling, acceptance of an article by the New York Times in 2013, and the 2011 in-depth article in Vermont Woman. I found that Brown has a bio on, and regularly contributes to, Huffington Post, [5]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As author of this article, I am aware that previous article, written by different author, was deleted. I am willing to make any changes explicitly suggested in this discussion. I believe subject has adequate notoriety and exposure to qualify as noteworthy. Wisconsota (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find articles in reliable sources that discuss this person, rather than articles written by this person. Publishing an article in The New York Times does not make one notable. When The New York Times writes an article about you, that makes you notable. Book reviews of her work would also make her notable. Blogs and other other self-published sites don't count. Primary sources also don't count toward establishing notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per the nutshell of WP:N, notable topics are "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." There are many ways to establish wp:notability. So when the editors of the New York Times select an author to publish, they are giving direct attention to that author. In my !vote I specified "acceptance" of the article as the element of wp:notability. The publication of the article generates further wp:notability when readers look at the name of the author. Unscintillating (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, that's not how it works. Primary sources do not grant notability. See WP:42 for a quick and easy version. Sources must be independent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:42 seriously misrepresents our notability guidelines and has been subject of controversy for some time. If you look at its talk page you will discover that even its supporters admit that it should never be cited at AfD in any context. I suggest that you refer directly to WP:N. My reading of it is that GNG does not work in reverse and that a topic is not presumed to be non-notable only because it fails GNG. James500 (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every single guideline, policy, and essay on Wikipedia has people who call it "controversial" and decry its use in deletion discussions – even WP:N, which some people have claimed is not a valid deletion rationale. Your objection is noted, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No basis for the original reasoning - I see significant coverage through references like Fox Business. Seems to pass basic WP:BIO SayItRight1 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show where the coverage of Brown is in that link? It appears she's only an in-studio panelist for a segment, and it's not actually about her. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:00, 9 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) 12:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. -- GreenC 16:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Green Cardamom, where are the sources about her? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this a useful and important article. If there are any breaches of source protocol, please correct them, but do not delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydauncey (talk • contribs) 21:17, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OldApps

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

There is no indication why subject is important to be included and non reliable third party sources. Itsalleasy (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the nom and am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 21:02, 30 January 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 January 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources are from directories with no indication of notability. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 31 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) 12:28, 10 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:56, 20 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Survé

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

This began as a userspace draft at User:IqbalSurve, which came up at MfD. Consensus there was to move to mainspace and list at AfD. Please note that biographies on this person were PRODded at Dr Mohammed Iqbal Surve and Mohammed Iqbal Surve in 2010. This is a procedural action on my part, and I am neutral on the question of deletion at present. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 30 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) 12:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lot of minor material here, but ono single part of it is notable, andthe sum of many non-notable activities is still non-notable. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:25, 10 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:55, 20 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) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total Car Parks Limited

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

Car Park company in a single city. As expected, local refs only. As also expected, approved at AfC DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per satisfying Wikipedia:GNG. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Several of the sources specifically contradict the "in a single city" claim that is a key point of this deletion nomination. (They use phrases like "across the country" and "nationwide".) If the supposed "single city" concerned is Manchester, it is worth noting that Manchester is not in Essex nor in East Anglia, thus none of the sources can be considered "local". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see issues here that need community review, and the vague wave to "local refs" and "single city" has been refuted. Unscintillating (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Utterly pointless nomination!, Article clearly passes GNG!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:01, 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. 28bytes (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Fialho

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not establish the notability of this subject. Folgertat (talk) 15:59, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moi Navarro

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

Article appears to be written with promotional intent either by the subject, PR team, or fan. Article has unsubstantiated claims along with unverifiable or 1st party sources such as the artist's Facebook page. Cmcnamee (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BAND (I can't tell if the subject is an individual or a group, but both links point to the same criteria). I found two interesting links: this write-up may not be sufficiently independent of the subject, and it isn't a reliable source, however if he has performed national anthems at a professional-level hockey game, he may meet GNG. The newreleasetuesday database entry, however it appears very similar to the content of the article, some is a verbatim match. It states that it was lasted edited by NRTeamAdmin, but not that the staff member wrote it. Is the Malibu Music Award notable? If so, http://www.malibumusicawards.com/2010/2010grandprize.php. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:19, 30 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) 12:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:28, 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 delete. Consensus seems to be that even if he meets the subject-specific notability guideline in a technical sense, Parkinson doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Parkinson (footballer born 1945)

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

Unsourced stub that Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the sake of factual accuracy, the article is sourced (albeit only one source) and passes WP:NFOOTY as the subject made one appearance in the Football League. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the reference I thought it was just a note.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - his sole FL appearance was as an amateur, confirmed by this. @Mattythewhite: do you have the Hugman book? What information is there about him? If this is it then I might be inclined to say he is non-notable... Giant Snowman 18:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL by virtue of his Football League appearance, though it'd do no harm for the article to state explicitly in the prose that he played in that league. Article needs improving, not deleting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surely Leyton Orient was fully professional in 1967. Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Technical WP:NFOOTY pass at best, but WP:GNG always overrides this. Unclear how an article on a player who made one potentially FPL appearance could be expanded to meet GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – GNG trumps NFOOTBALL, GNG doesn't guarantee articles should be kept. There seems to be nothing to add to the article, which lacks enough gravitas to have an article. C 679 13:14, 8 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) 12:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The relationship between the GNG and the sport specific guides has never been certain. l I think it's logical to see them as alternatives, if for no other reason that it greatly reduces the need for detailed analysis of the great number of articles. I agree the result can seem absurd to someone like me not particularly interested in the sport, but that's irrelevant--its still better not to need the discussions. I fail to see why gravitas is a requirement for a WP article. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG, even though perhaps barely satisfying WP:NFOOTY. No inherent notability for kicking a ball in 1 professional game. Edison (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having merely shown up at a professional level is no longer enough. Consensus has changed. Subject must have been covered substantially or have achieved some significant accomplishment to merit inclusion. No objection to redirecting to an article on the team he made the roster on or some type of list article if one exists. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While technically passing WP:NSPORT, the article fails WP:GNG clearly enough for it fall under the part of WP:NSPORT that says that not all article that pass its must be kept. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:51, 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 redirect to Crew of the RMS Titanic. slakr^\ talk / 12:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Sheath

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

WP:ONEEVENT. PROD removed with the rationale that there are a large number of articles on other Titanic survivors. This is a poor argument: part WP:OTHERSTUFF, and partly because many of the people on the ship would merit biographies even had they not been on board. There is, incidentally, also an article on the individual lifeboat on whicj Sheath escaped. TheLongTone (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete as per nom fails WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ONEEVENT.
Comment. Will removing this content from Wikipedia improve our coverage and further our understanding of the Titanic? Hard to see how. Maybe a merger discussion is called for, but I don't yet see a compelling argument for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does including this article "improve our coverage and further our understanding of the Titanic??

Very hard to see how, I think the issues are dealt with already. TheLongTone (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crew of the RMS Titanic ~~per~~ in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, if WP:BLP1E doesn't allow for a standalone article about this subject. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deprodded the article, not because I think he's especially notable (he certainly isn't), but because there are indeed a large number of articles on crew and passengers of the Titanic who aren't really especially notable and I felt it needed a wider discussion rather than being nominated for uncontroversial deletion via prodding. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's no additional info here that is not already included on several other articles, except for his non-notable biographical info (nothing to merge). ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merging any relevant content, to Crew of the RMS Titanic. WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy, not a deletion policy, however this is a reasonable redirect/search term and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I struck part of my !vote above, and added "in the spirit of" after the struck portion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that actually is something I can get behind! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect (probably mostly the latter) -- I suspect that the subject was not responsible for the small number of passengers in the boat; rather it was the officer who directed him to crew it. The tone of the article feels a bit of an attack on a seaman who was only following instructions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started this AfD, & feel that there is not enough for a merge & that a rediect would be the best option.TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 9 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-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amyt Datta

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

Flunks on WP:BAND. Article fails to explain why the subject is notable or worths an encyclopedic article. Ocean of flippant, frivolous and trivial references with external links which are not enough to establish any sort of notability. Current state of the article comes no near to the General notability guideline at Wikipedia. Hitro talk 17:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 30 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) 12:32, 10 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability standards like Gold charts as seen in the notability criterion does not apply to India as it doesn't have one. Upon some googling, artist seems to have a fair share of albums and is definitely worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwan07 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 February 2014

Fails on WP:BAND, if you think he doesn't then explain it why and with some sources. I have nominated him after googling. References are frivolous that is one of the reasons for this nomination. Hitro talk 18:36, 23 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 21:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Anderson (actress)

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

Unreferenced because there are no reliable sources about her LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 30 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) 12:41, 10 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She does meet the letter of WP:ACTOR: she starred in Summer School Teachers and Fly Me and is mentioned in some reviews of T.N.T. Jackson indicating her part was significant. But there's very little about her online. Based on the films she made, I'd expect her to be covered more now in books and websites on cult cinema than she would be in the 1970s when the films came out. So it's whether failure of WP:GNG overrides pass of WP:ACTOR. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:43, 20 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell V. Anderson III

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

Unreferenced because there are no reliable sources about him. He meets WP:BARE by having appeared in movies. Doesn't deserve his own Wiki page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He meets WP:NACTOR through various roles in film and tv (from Brotherhood of Death and Kickboxer (film) to the play Julia which was widely reviewed in 2010-11). There's not much detailed content online, but his career goes back to the late 1970s, during which he's worked widely on film, TV, and stage, as well as being involved with the L.A. Rebellion movement, working for Catholic organisation CIMA, winning an NAACP acting award (not notable in itself but all part of the picture), so there may well be content on him offline. I removed some promotional language but it could do with further editing. As to whether he "deserves" an article, this is about applying policies not Lady Lotus's moral judgment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I say he doesn't "deserve", I meant he doesn't really have any reason to have his own wikipedia page per notability. And as per WP:NACTORS it states they should have "significant roles in multiple notable films" I would beg to differ. Most of his roles are College Interviewer, Male Juror, Man #3, Junkie, Courtroom #7 Clerk, Well Dressed Client, Man, or Barber shop pimp to name a few. He played a minor role in Kickboxer (film), I don't know if I would consider that notable. He's more of an extra/character actor at best. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:19, 31 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) 12:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonably recognizable character actor, with sufficient parts to pass NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senyo Amoaku

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

Not notable. No reliable sources about him. He's mainly an extra or character actor. Shouldn't have his own Wiki page LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 30 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) 12:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and absence of major career accomplishments to merit inclusion per guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:24, 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 delete. Ged UK 12:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno Legend

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

Completing a malformed AfD nomination by another user. The rationale for deletion was stated by User:71.43.28.22 as "The page is blatant advertising. All text is copied directly from the promotional website with no extra information offered." (Diff page). I presently have no opinion about the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deleted much of the page as a copyvio. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google news search turns up 3 results that could justify a stub. Paviliolive (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What results did you find? I only had one item come up in news search, one of the joystiq.com posts.Dialectric (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq has 3 articles on it and PCGamesN has one. That's all I could find. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software of unclear notability, lacking RS references. A search revealed only 1 piece of significant coverage, this mmorpg.com review which on its own is not sufficient to establish notability. There are brief items on joystiq.com covering various beta releases and giveaways, but nothing I see as significant coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:27, 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. Will recreate as the original redirect, and protect. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Alan

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was questioned for notability 4 years ago and I still fail to see his notability to have his own Wikipedia page. He's a extra/character actor. Notable how? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with the view expressed by Niteshift36 in the previous AFD 'Minor roles in notable shows don't make you notable, especially when they are one time appearances. Nor does appearing in 8 episodes out of 60 as "bartender". Fails WP:ENT' Finnegas (talk) 12:07, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not expressing an opinion on whether this should be deleted as I haven't looked into it, but I created this page as a redirect to George Allan. If it is deleted, I'd like it to become a redirect to Geroge Allan, although it might need some protection, as this is how it was possible for the creator to avoid new page patrol. Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly clearly doesn't meet WP:ENT, even with recent choice parts like "Waiter", "Gas Man" and "Party Guest". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 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. If anybody wants to take a shot at merging some of the content somewhere else, ask any admin to userfy it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Govware

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

This article is a crass violation of WP:OR and WP:V. "Govware" is not used in practically any of the sources cited, nor is a definition given in the 1st source cited. The rest is a mishmash table of stuff that is better suited for individual prose articles rather than this WP:SYN. Most (but not all) of the contents from its table can be found in the NSA ANT catalog article, making this page mostly a WP:CFORK as well. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple Gsearch shows many prior uses of this word with various meanings. No reason to privilege this would-be neologism over prior usage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Malware. Judging by the content in the article at the moment, this could be a {{R with possibilities}} but as for now, it is a potential wiktionary definition, and largely a content fork from the NSA Ant Catalog article mentioned in the nomination. Correct me if I am wrong, but it could be 90% malicious software, and 10% malicious hardware dongles and other intrusion techniques. I think Wikipedia could wait a year or two, perhaps less, to see if this concept stands on its own, or whether it makes a significant difference to our knowledge about malware that some of it is created or modified by government, hackers, crackers or corporations. I think with the massive resources some governments may have invested in the software, then if the leaks and cyberwars continue, it, or Government-sponsored computer intrusion (deliberate redlink) may soon have enough reliable sources to become a WP:LIST or a signpost article or more.

While the concept will soon deserve an article, and the term is verifiable[6], these links to alternative uses make me think that Govware is not yet established enough as a word to host such an article:

The words "crass" and "violation" are not helpful in reaching consensus. Nominator: please strike them.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was a pretty crass WP:V violation. The Der Spiegel article about TAO/ANT does not ever mention "govware". In fact their entire site doesn't have even one mention of the term [7] The wiki article was changed by an IP (you?) to now link to a completely different reference in Linux Magazin [8], which does use the term in a context that may indeed equate it with Government malware ("Possible Govware Trojan"), although it's rather unclear what meaning it has given that "Trojan" was appended to it. But that's written by a German-name author, although publishing in English. It's possible that's a cultural thing. With my modicum of understanding of Swiss German this Swiss Law FAQ seems to make Govware synonymous with interception software. The paper you linked to ("In God We Trust All Others We Monitor") is also written by employees of a German company. The paper has pretty poor write-up and uses the term a couple of times first as "provable stealth government software (GovWare)" and then as "stealth GovWare Trojan". So it's not even providing a clear definition. I don't think this term is in widespread use with the "government malware" meaning in English (not by native speakers anyway) from what I've seen so far. I would not object making this page about the Swiss state Trojan stuff (as the 66 IP has began to do), assuming govware really conveys that meaning in [Swiss] German these days. It would probably make more sense to use a less ambiguous title for English readers though (Swiss federal trojan controversy or something like that). The US stuff TAO/ANT etc. can then be linked by "see also" without risking OR definitions or articles that become too nebulous in scope. I found an article in Techworld [9] about the 2006 Swiss MegaPanzer also called Bundestrojaner, although that title is currently redirecting (in part correctly given [10]) to a section about the 2011 German one... so this page is a bit of WP:CFORK again (only about the German one though, can't find in anything about the Swiss one in the English Wikipedia besides what was added to the lead of this article). At least Bundestrojaner needs a disambiguation between the Swiss and the German one, if not cover both of them. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found a better written article in English (still mostly about the German stuff though with Austria, Switzerland, and The Netherlands mentioned) here, which is a bit more clearly defining Govware as "government spyware" in the titl, though strangely the rest of the paper never uses the term again and only talks of trojan horses thereafter. So I wouldn't object to a redirect to spyware, where a def and overwiew section could be added based on that paper. The page should probably be turned into a disambiguation with the other meanings later. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added something myself there [11]. Also mentioned it at Computer and network surveillance [12]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:45, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am just not seeing this terminology. Main hits are for a company which still exists and a trade show which apparently does not; I'm not seeing any significant evidence of this usage. Almost every reference in the article is to some Der Spiegel articles posted within the last month; the thousand-odd apparent older references all appear to be hits on the conference (at which presentations were made about malware) except one hit from 2009 cited in the article. The coinage didn't catch on and we shouldn't have a redirect from it at this time. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of government-sponsored malware. Topic is notabile. Terminology is not. ~KvnG 18:19, 8 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, slakr^\ talk / 12:32, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mellisai

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

Although sources exist they are questionable as to their neutrality and I am not seeing notability here per WP:MOVIE. Also this seems a clear case of WP:TOOSOON since the film is not expected to be released before the end of 2014. Article was previously tagged for ref improve and notability and PROD. Subsequently both PROD and all maintenance tags were removed without explanation or any improvement in the article by its creator. I also note the article's creator has a track record of controversial edits and article creations. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the article's creator has a track record of controversial edits and article creations" - how exactly? Please refrain from jumping to such unaccountable accusations. The film is in production, has been reported in the media widely and will release shortly. Editor 2050 (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is about a future film that is in active production and is being covered by multiple third parties. This sufficiently passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:25, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Bovineboy2008. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:52, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinch Off

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTHOWTO; the latter is surmountable, but the former isn't. "Pinch Off" isn't mentioned at either of the two references present, so perhaps this is just a colloquialism for a type of bread. "pinch off" bread -wikipedia seems to support this. "Pinch bread" is another name for monkey bread, but since it doesn't seem that that's ever called "Pinch Off," there wouldn't seem to be a benefit to redirecting either. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I almost didn't have time to vote on this AfD, I've been so busy working on my article Spoon Fling. It's all about a special kind of crepe. It's just like other crepes, but you start by putting a pat of butter on a spoon, then flinging it into the pan. It's a really fun thing to think about when you're on death row or an intercontinental flight. Delete. Ringbang (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --BDD (talk) 04:12, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This might even qualify for CSD. Neither of the sources mention "pinch off," a Google search returns all sorts of things but no visible "pinch off" bread in the first pages. It's a how-to, and I strongly suspect WP:MADEUP. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:32, 5 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kayden Faye

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete BLP that fails GNG or any SNGs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 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) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Significant reliable source coverage not found in searches. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mere nominations no longer enable stubs like this to pass PORNBIO. Finnegas (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/neutral. Sources are provided and she is somewhat notable, having been in over 20 adult films, though at the same time I tend to agree with the above reasoning. Tinton5 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources do you think pass RS? None of them cut the mustard in my book. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper Curtis

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

Not referenced, not notable. She had 5 credits as extras on films (3 uncredited) and then 3 credits as a stunt woman (2 uncredited). No reliable sources about her. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 30 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) 12:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:NACTOR. IMDb lists only a couple credits for her, and many of them are uncredited. I can only assume that someone created this as a memorial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fairly clearly does not meet WP:ENT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and the SNG low bar for actors. Appears to be a small memorial, my condolences to her family and friends. Carrite (talk) 19:42, 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. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Save the date

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG as most google hits are websites to order the cards. ~~Secondly, the article seems to have a copyright-problem (Duplication detector)~~ The Banner talk 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With good secondary sources it would pass the GNG, but I didn't find any. Even though its usage in American English is evident, I don't think it qualifies as per WP:NEO and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. If this idiom lasts, I expect that a more appropriate article title would be save-the-date notice rather than an imperative sentence. —Ringbang (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that the blog copied from Wikipedia; that text was in the article earlier than the date of the blog post. (That fact has no bearing on notability, only on the apparent copyright issue.) Cnilep (talk) 09:09, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a WP:DICTDEF and this is hardly an idiomatic expression that might need explaining so it's not even suitable for the Wiktionary. If the topic is actually trying to be "save the date" card, that probably fails WP:GNG. The most I could find about it is stuff at the level of definition with some advice how to make these which wouldn't be suitable per WP:NOTHOWTO, e.g. [13][14]. A paragraph at wedding invitation should suffice for the concept of this "pre-invitation". Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:29, 1 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. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame

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

lack of notability, lack of independent sources and verifiability, content not suitable for an encyclopaedia Crusader2011 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Crusader2011 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 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 January 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 22:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. Not certain if this is sufficiently notable for a standalone article. I suppose two lines could be added to a new subsection of University of Notre Dame#Campus: "All first-year students are not only guaranteed on-campus housing, but are required to reside on-campus for at least one semester. There are currently 29 residence halls: 15 men-only, 14 women-only." That could then link to this list, if it's kept. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though consider move/rename to List of University of Notre Dame buildings (currently a redlink), more in parallel with other members of Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States. Some articles about separate possibly notable residence halls have been redirected to this list, losing material and references. See this Sorin Hall article version, just before being redirected on December 13, which may possibly support the notability of that hall on its own. (There was an AFD tag but it shows only a redlink, i don't see an AFD discussion). In Notre Dame University#Campus section of the university article, there's a photo captioned "Historic Washington Hall on the Main Quadrangle, popularly termed the God Quad", and there's a New Buildings subsection. I am sure that there are a number of individually notable NDU buildings, and having a list-article covering them all together instead of separate articles is a fine way to go. --do ncr am 20:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There exists navigation template {{University of Notre Dame}} which links to a number of university structures having articles. A list-article of them all, with a section on residence halls, would be fine. See guideline wp:CLT about how category, list, and navigation templates are complementary. --do ncr am 20:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Eccekevin reverted several redirects from non-notable individual residence halls and removed the AfD tag. I've reverted everything back and given a warning. ₆an⁶sh₆ 01:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is a directory not an encyclopedia article.--Charles (talk) 19:44, 9 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) 12:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is generally a justified breakotu page at a famous university of considerable size, and that's true here also. Most of the individual ones will not be notable, but this is the way to cover them. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per doncram and DGG. Side note: I redirected several individual pages (including the one above that doncram points out) because of a lack of independent sources; an IP editor put up an AfD template on them without any rationale anywhere first. ₆an⁶sh₆ 21:35, 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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old College, University of Notre Dame

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

lack of notability; lack of independent sources; not encyclopaedic article; marketing material Crusader2011 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the nomination; I'd say ~~redirect~~ to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame (as I did with several others a while back) - I can't find any independent sources either. The possible notability seems to hinge on the fact that it's the oldest building at Notre Dame (which is why I didn't redirect it with the others), but now that I do a search for it I don't think it's adequate. Ansh6 6 6 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep and improve - the National Register of Historic Places is good enough, but the article really needs some WP:RSes. ₆an⁶sh₆ 22:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (Template:R to list entry) seems to be the most sensible thing. —Ringbang (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:00, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 30 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) 12:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a landmark of one of the most important uninversities in the US. It was the first building built and was built in 1842. Having almost 200 years, it is an historical building and also a seminary, so an institution by its own and not only part of the UNivesrity of Notre DameEccekevin (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the first and oldest building, I expect there exists additional documentation off-line about this. It seems individually notable. It was not only a dormitory, it was the original building of the university, with other functions. Now it is a seminary and I don't think that is the same as a "dormitory". I do think this should continue to be linked separately from the navigation template of significant Notre Dame buildings, and not kludged into a list of the dorms only. --do ncr am 20:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - historically significant building and, as also a seminary, it has a role separate from the University. Sure it needs expansion and better sourcing but that, rather than deletion, is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I have found the documentation from 1973 that proves that Old College, together with many other building of Notre Dame, is on the National Register of Historic Places. https://secure.in.gov/apps/dnr/shaard/r/1c9d1/N/University_of_Notre_Dame_Campus_Main_and_South_Quadrangles_St._Joseph_CO_Nom.pdf It is building #1 on the list. This proves its significance on a national level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Eccekevin (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

And so I struck it. ₆an⁶sh₆ 22:08, 17 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cold-fX

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

Article was recently tagged for notability. Since it has been around a while and has sources, I am taking it into AfD to decide the issue. If there is a quick consensus in favor of ~~delete~~, oops, keep, I will withdraw the nomination and close early, but better than leaving a notability tag on the article indefinitely. I lean slightly to delete, but I won't press the issue if the consensus goes the other way. Safiel (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the editors/contributors of the page cannot transcribe words and passages from the cited source, this page is no longer credible and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.223.130 (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The larger issue is that we appear to have the manufacturer aggressively editing Wikipedia in an effort to promote this stuff per [15] I support either keep or merge to American ginseng Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per the relevant notability guideline, WP:PRODUCT, particularly the line "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product ... especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." Moreover, since American ginseng exists, MOS:PHARM's (WP:Supplements lacks a MOS) section on layout indicates that, assuming this product is even notable enough for mention here, this simply be added to a subsection on a list of brands in that article. Except in very unusual circumstances, drug articles should always use the generic name for a substance and not its brand name (examples of unusual circumstances include:a sufficiently large history section to merits a separate summary-style article, no generic name for a brand with sufficient notability (notoriety), or the only available generic name for a very notable drug is stupidly long, like Dextroamphetamine Sulfate, Dextroamphetamine Saccharate, Amphetamine Sulfate and Amphetamine Aspartate. Among these examples, hydroxycut is probably the most comparable article for notability comparison, as its a dietary supplement with notoriety.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and watch. The article has a rough average of 100 clicks a day, people looking for information on this. If there is evidence from reliable secondary sources as to its efficacy, (as in this case) then people should be able to find this information in an encyclopedia. We would be doing the company editors trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox a great favour by deleting the article as it is Ochiwar (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:59, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:23, 30 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) 12:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep as the product is notable, the COI editing should be dealt with either page protection or aggressive monitoring. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging with American ginseng does not make sense to me since most people looking for this article would not know to look under ginseng. There have been no edits since it came off protection in late December so there is no current issue with COI edits. If anything, the article is currently unbalanced to the negative side. The product has had widespread distribution and media coverage in Canada and seems notable to me, whether it works or not. Meters (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Source examples:

"Fighting the Common Cold". ABC News. 2005-10-25.
Does Cold-FX work instantly as claimed? - Canada - CBC News
Paladin Labs' Afexa Sciences Hostile Takeover Bid Worth $56.7 Million
Health Canada approves Cold-fX's medical claims | CTV News
Battle brews to take over Cold-FX maker Afexa - The Globe and Mail
UBC professors question effectiveness of Cold-fX
Q&A: The Doctor Who Created Cold-FX | Health Media Today
Cold-FX maker has failed to deliver on promises: Paladin | Financial Post
Charlie Gillis (2007-03-26). "COLD-fX catches the sniffles again". Macleans Magazine.

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. See reference improvements and additional sources added to article (under "Further reading") by Northamerica1000 - tucoxn\^talk 05:40, 12 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Copa Catalunya

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

Non-notable football tournament, failing WP:GNG Precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005–06 Copa Catalunya (2nd nomination) JMHamo (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "four-team football tournament"?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I've corrected it now. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - there is consensus at AFD that individual stagings of this competition are not notable, and I see no reason why these two are any different. Giant Snowman 18:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike the previous deletion, there are no lack of recent articles from various publications demonstrating that this competition meets WP:GNG (simply because there seems to be a lack of Catalan articles available on line from a decade ago on any subject!). Some examples are [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Nfitz (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2012-13 - per Nfitz, there certainly seems to be international coverage of this tournament. There needs to be significant work on the article to add sourced prose however as both contravene WP:NOTSTATS at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. There are many reliable sources are shown above. NickSt (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per precedent and Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 8 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) 12:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything worth keeping in either of these articles. – Pee Jay 20:20, 11 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although not well known, and in need of some expansion it seems to have ok cover in the links listed above. I don't see how this is worse than having a list of <obscure items>; the cup itself is notable, and this round of the cup have cover at least for the finals and semifinals, possibly also some of the other matches (disclaimer; sources translated with Google translate). Bjelleklang - talk 19:24, 20 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 The Pick of Destiny. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classico

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

This song does not appear to be notable, given that notability is not inherited from appearing on a well-known album (in this case The Pick of Destiny). Given the paucity of reliable sources in the article, and the fact that I couldn't find very many through Google, I propose converting this article into a redirect, though I may change my mind if some such sources can be found. Jinkinson talk to me 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:37, 22 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) 16:14, 30 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) 12:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pick of Destiny. Adabow (talk) 04:25, 17 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 by User:RHaworth per WP:NOTHOWTO. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting the Ideal painting contractors in Caputa

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

This article reads like an instruction manual for how to select a painting contractor. WP:NOTGUIDE. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:48, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya Pandit

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

Does not seem to meet notability requirements (WP:BIO, WP:GNG). The first reference (indoscopy) doesn't look like a mainstream published source and many not be RS. The second is OK, but I don't think it's enough. Searching [31] doesn't show anything else much, apart from copies of the same 1-off comment piece. Also I think WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE should err on the side of caution when it comes to children. 2.123.67.6 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment completing nomination for IP user. Mangoe (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please Google his name! He is considered genius my Indian media as compared to his age! Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 07:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 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) 12:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People are not notable for just being precocious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:08, 20 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I've removed the "first source" mentioned above because it was Blogger-hosted content. Worse, it was merely repeating what the news sources said. Worse still, the news sources are merely repeating what each other say, almost akin to a press release (although one does say his IQ might be 150 whereas another says it might be 130). The family are seeking donations and that seems to be the impetus behind all this. If he really is a notable child prodigy then he'll do something notable over an extended period of time, not just as a one-day news effort. The article can always be recreated if that is shown at some point in the future. Having a Wikipedia article on a 5-year old one-hit wonder is a lot of pressure to put on a kid. So, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, WP:PROMO, WP:RS ... I could go on. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changed from delete to keep. I'm weak on it but take on board the comments below. - Sitush (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His "memory power" has made him well known in North India and his interaction with film actor Amitabh Bachchan in KBC show has made him popular, but after that first burst of activities, the boy seems become silent. Now, the article is re-organised, less puffery and with due respects to User:Sitush, problems about WP:RS,WP:Promo are now attended. But it may not pass WP:NOTNEWS and even then I feel the topic/article merits a weak keep. And of course, it may put pressure on the boy, which pressure he already sustained with numerous TV shows aired in India, just to display his "memory power"! - Rayabhari (talk) 10:19, 23 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The newly added sources seem to meet RS and GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to my last comment. The article still needs a lot of work and I think is still way too promotional. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include:

Hindustan Times
The Tribune
Zee News (Video)
The Hindu (Short article, but entirely about the subject)
The Times of India (Short article, but entirely about the subject)

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 5 March 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Vidal

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

~~Unsourced BLP and the article fails WP:GNG~~ Ok Obvious screw up on my part Meant to nominate this article . Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - Competed in two separate Winter Olympics, so easily meets WP:ATHLETE, and the EL in the article can easily be turned into a reference, just like I have done. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:12, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Ravi

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

Delete, I'm not confident this would pass a csd but this gentleman does not pass WP:ACTOR or the WP:GNG in the sources available. It's possible there be sources in his vernacular. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The image used in article is currently in CAT:CSD as copyvio. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 16:54, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 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. 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheltenham Town Football Club 50 Greats

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

Non-notable book. Also the content of the article is probably a copyvio of a published list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Half the players on there aren't notable, and the only real coverage of the book at all comes from Gloucestershire-based newspapers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Luke, no indication of significant widespread coverage on this book. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – absence of independent significant coverage on the topic, title also seems to have a NPOV issue ;) C 679 13:10, 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 redirect to Kamal-ol-molk. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The spring hall of Golestan Palace

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

Notability of this painting is not established. Only one source is cited that only lists the painting, bout without significant coverage. Google search returns no hits ([32]). Vanjagenije (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Kamal-ol-molk. no evidence of independent notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:35, 30 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) 12:49, 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. 28bytes (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pea Hix

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

Non-notable musician. Article created in 2006 and barely edited since. Subject undoubtedly exists, but there is no indication of notability in the article and a Google search has produced no independent sources on the subject (other than on San Diego local source about photos, not music). Other sites are clones of Wikipedia or publicity/self-promotion. Emeraude (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page as intimately tied to Pea Hix:[reply]

Emeraude (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quick google search gave me no sources to prove notability under WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band that this person in is unremarkable - only links to AllMusic and their official website. Person is not notable. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:38, 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. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College Assignment Help

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

PROD removed with no explanation. Essay. (and remarkably badly written: I'm not sure what the article is actually about) TheLongTone (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the first two words neatly sum it up: this is someone's college assignment. The use of references is dubious - none seem to support or even mention what precedes them. Being badly written is not, in itself, a reason to delete - articles can be improved - but that hardly applies here. Emeraude (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using the quality of writing as an argumenet for deletion: the point is that the quality of writing makes it difficult to tell what the article is about, so precluding improvement.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

obvious essay delete and should have been speedied as such. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as G11. The external links at the bottom all eventually lead (through in-line links) to writengine.com, a source for purchased essays. The text of the article is of the same tone as the the external links. This is sneaky spam. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:19, 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 redirect to SPOD (band). JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taste the Radness

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

Non-notable self-published album by barely notable band. Can be merged to the band's article (SPOD (band)) Emeraude (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SPOD. I don't know if more RS exist and if they do, I'm willing to change my vote. But other than that, I only found one source that goes over a re-release of the album. In any case, unless those sources come about I think that we should redirect to the main article but leave the history in case more sources become available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Sommer

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

Promotional, written like an advert, appears to be an autobiography that is monitored by an IP, notability not apparent. Jim1138 (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability seems to be based on who he represents, not who he is. Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Being employed by notable people does not make you notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'"Keep'" notability apparent based on citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamtom123 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasons above. Also: Being nominated as "Agent of the year" by a trade pub is of interest only to the trade and (perhaps) potential clients; it doesn't translate to encyclopedic notability. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:14, 5 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2015 Pan American Games

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

Contested PROD, with the following reason "This is a routine article, and will be created sooner or later - see previous years. That the tournament will happen is of no doubt. Facilities and athletes village approaching completion. Qualification starts in about a year. Meets WP:GNG easily." It fails WP:Crystal and is unsourced JMHamo (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is obviously not a case of WP:Crystal, as this is not unverifiable speculation. Pan American Games are a major sports event, and there are many sources about the upcoming 2015 games. We have Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics, so there is no reason to delete this article. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if qualification doesn't even start for a year, then what about this?! Giant Snowman 13:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Football at the 2011 Pan American Games, a related article is fully sourced and shows notability. This article relates to the 2015 Pan American Games which is too highly notable. ///EuroCarGT 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the massive, daily, significant media coverage (at least around here) about the 2015 Pan Am games, and various events, I can't even begin to comprehend why we are here. Clearly meets WP:GNG [33] [34] [35] [36] Nfitz (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. @Lugnuts:, since there is a qualification phase to take place prior to the actual event, no information can be provided other than than that it will probably take place at the moment. @EuroCarGT:, completely agree that this will be a notable subject once there is something that can actually be written about it. Fenix down (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given the coverage over the controversy over the change in venue from Toronto to Hamilton, Ontario, the controversy over the reconstruction of Ivor Wynne Stadium, and the controversy over Canada's (who have qualified) plan to take a B-team, there is information that can be added. Nfitz (talk) 15:17, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Apart perhaps from the fact that the event will be held, any content that can go in here at this point would be speculation at this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:57, 18 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : this proposed deletion is taking WP:CRYSTAL way too far. The future holding of this event is obviously notable in and of itself, and has been definitively confirmed in terms of date and location. There may not as yet be much to say about the subject - but there are some useful pieces of confirmed information, the subject is notable, and there is no realistic quality of 'fortune-telling' or prediction. this is a confirmed event - the only speculation would be as to some of the details. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 16:42, 20 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 Procedural Close. Wrong venue. This is a redirect and should be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Radio Controversy

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

Non-existent subject Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:28, 30 January 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 January 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Because it's a redirect. (The reason for deletion is false: there are legitimate uses of this term that refer to the discovery of radio[37][38] and have nothing to do with the album by the band Tesla, though people may still want to redirect it to the album The Great Radio Controversy. But deleting rather than redirecting will serve no purpose.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Moore

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as the UK Adult Film and Television Awards are not 'a well-known and significant industry award'. In addition, fails WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO for starring in and winning an internationally recognised award for her work in an iconic feature 'Hug a Hoodie' that built on a speech made by British Prime Minister David Cameron on a theme that was of significant cultural importance in the UK. For further information see Anna Span Graemp (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to suggest that UK Adult Film and Television Awards is 'internationally recognised award'. Moreover, you cannot claim that 'Hug a Hoodie' is iconic and 'of significant cultural importance in the UK' without producing reliable sources. Finnegas (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to suggest that the UK Adult Film and Television Awards are not 'internationally recognised awards'. WP:PORNBIO 1. says "Has won a well-known and significant industry award." and deliberately does not specify any one or group of awards. However wikipedia has deemed the awards significant enough to maintain a dedicated page to them. The question of providing reliable sources is a matter for an article not a matter for a deletion discussion. I took the trouble to provide you with a suitable link to encourage you to read around your subject. Graemp (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Well-known and significant" has been well-established as a higher standard than Wikipedia notability. Just because an award meets the minimum WP standards for notability does not establish that it is well-known and significant -- indeed, the majority of Wikipedia subjects would fail the "well-known" test alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the Award has an aricle does not automatically mean it is "well-known and significant industry award". For instance, the Eroticline Awards were deemed not to be "well-known and significant" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renee Pornero in August 2013. Finnegas (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important not to get side-tracked too much into other discussions, however, since you raised the issue of the Renee Pornero discussion, it should be addressed. You state that "the Eroticline Awards were deemed not to be well-known and significant" based upon the conclusion that Pornero was deleted. However, if one reads that discussion, the only person to specifically state that they believed the Eroticline Awards failed WP:PORNBIO was yourself and nowhere in the summation is this point directly referred to.Graemp (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ought to focus mainly around the UKAFTA status in 2007, the year when Carmel Moore won Best Female Actress. To assess the significance of the UKAFTAs you first need to assess the significance of those awards to the UK adult film industry. Wikipedia only carries information on two sets of awards for this period, the UKAFTAs and the Erotic Awards. The latter awards to me don't seem to qualify as pornographic industry awards as they seem to cover a far more broader area of interest. So I would conclude that the UKAFTAs seem to have been not just the most significant industry award in the UK but the only industry award in the UK. Having assessed the significance of the UKAFTAs to the UK porn industry, the only thing left is to assess if there was a bona fida UK porn industry in 2007. Pornography in Europe section on the UK sources a 2006 article on the UK porn industry that estimated its worth at about £1 billion, which seems to suggest that in 2007 the UK porn industry did indeed exist. So in conclusion, we know from a wikipedia article that the UK porn industry was a bona fide porn industry and also from wikipedia articles that the UKAFTAs were apparently its main if not its only set of industry specific awards. We also know that wikipedia has maintained a page specifically on these awards for over five years. We also know that Carmel Moore won it's most significant award in 2007. So Carmel Moore clearly Passes WP:PORNBIO#1 and arguably #2 for starring in an iconic feature as mentioned above. Graemp (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject in question here passes PORNBIO as she has "won a well-known" (UK Adult Film and Television Awards) "and significant" (Best Female Actress) "industry award." As is documented on the UKAFTA's Wikipedia page, those awards were well-known within Great Britian, and it's been well-established here at AfD in the past that Best Actress awards meet the "significant" award standard. I'm not intimately's familiar with the movie (Hug a Hoodie) that Ms. Moore won her award for, but the movie appears to have been related to a speech given by David Cameron, when he "famously urged the nation to 'hug a hoodie'."

The old Renee Pornero AfD is irrelevant to this article here, and there was, in fact, no determination made at that AfD that "the Eroticline Awards were deemed not to be 'well-known and significant'". That AfD occurred before the PORNBIO standard was tightened late last year to remove award nominations entirely, and, quite frankly, I don't remember if Ms. Pornero even won any awards or was just nominated for a bunch of them. Again, not that it matters here, but the Erotic Awards are in fact, at least in part, a pornographic film award. Guy1890 (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs better references if it's to avoid deletion.

Internet Adult Film Database is not a reliable source as it's a user generated database, and fails for the same reasons as references to IMDb and other similar sites. The lack of editorial oversight is the major issue with this source.
Carmel's own website isn't independent, nor does it contain sufficient information to really be considered a reliable source, indeed it is questionable whether it's really her official site at all, but the claim that she's a pornographic actress is unlikely to be particularly controversial so it's not really being used to reference something in a particularly problematic way
Private YouTube videos are very rarely if ever considered reliable sources because they can be updated and changed by the original creator and as with all user created work, not subject to editorial oversight.
Iran Politics Club is a 404 and looking at the home page, I wouldn't say it's a particularly reliable source either but I'm happy for others to correct me if they know more about it.
British Girls Adult Film Database is arguably not a reliable source given it's yet another user generated film database not subject to editorial oversight, but there's certainly an argument it's more reliable given it's not wide open to every user to go ahead and edit.
IMDb is never a reliable source - fine as an external link, not as a source for claims made within it, as yet again it's a user generated film and TV database not subject to editorial oversight. There's also a lot of circular referencing going on between WP and IMDb, claims made on Wikipedia end up on IMDb and the content on IMDb is used to verify the claim on Wikipedia.

I'm less certain on actual notability, without any proper references it's unfortunately an unsourced BLP and deletion is the only option, but I'd be surprised if there's not some good reliable sources out there, given the girl's background and history, I'm sure there's likely to be proper sources out there for someone to prove notability, if they want to do so. Nick (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick's points need to be addressed.

Nick is wrong, IAFD is a reliable source as it is user initiated in conjunction with having editorial oversight.
Nick is right, Carmel's website is clearly not an Independent website but as Nick says, this is not a problem.
Nick talks generally without addressing the specific interview in question, so his points are irrelevant. Then again, as far as this discussion is concerned, that source is largely irrelevant.
Nick is probably right on this count but the source is irrelevant in relation to this discussion.
Nick is wrong, BGAFD is a reliable source as it is user initiated in conjunction with having editorial oversight.
Nick may be right for all I know, but even if he is, this point is very minor to this discussion.

Nick seems to assume that because a particular source invites/encourages editorially controlled user involvement it will by definition be less reliable while I believe that it makes the source more reliable. It seems to me that all the articles in wikipedia on those involved in the porn industry rely on sourcing IAFD and where relevant BGAFD. I believe this is because they are widely acknowledged as reliable sources. The logic of Nick's arguement therefore is that virtually all wikipedias articles on pornography should be deleted. As they say, Good luck with that.Graemp (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"IMDb is never a reliable source"...sure it is...sometimes...especially for filmographies, which is all that the IMDb reference in question here is being used for in the article in question. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Guy1890 (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, there is absolutely zero evidence that "Hug a Hoodie" is an "iconic", "blockbuster", or "groundbreaking release - or even a notable one. Simply lifting a well-known phrase for a title does not confer stature of any kind on a film, video, song, book, or even a toaster. The claim is ridiculous. Second, the UKAFTA is not a "well-known and significant" award. It was a short-lived effort - a for-profit award ceremony which achieved very limited notoriety through publicity stunts like nominating mainstream performers for porn awards and announcing invitations to high-profile celebrities who invariably declined or ignored them. Award recipients are documented mainly, and rather badly, by message board posts at a user generated database site, and as one director involved with an award-garnering project commented recently, the event seemed "amateurish and desperate" and "if it wasn't for Wikipedia, there would be no proof that it ever even happened."[39] The awards also had a reputation for giving awards to films/videos that had not yet been released [40][41] -- and, in some cases, would never be released -- try to find any reliable evidence that the film for which one Jamie Brooks "won" her award actually existed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Award recipients are documented mainly, and rather badly, by message board posts at a user generated database site"...not on the UKAFTA Wikipedia page they are not. "The awards also had a reputation for giving awards to films/videos that had not yet been released"...so we're going to use "evidence" (forum postings) here at AfD that one would never even think of using in an actual article as a citation to try & prove something? Please, the "blokely.com" posting mostly reads like a disappointed porn producer's sour grapes. Guy1890 (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the UKAFTAs only ran for three years I believe is irrelevant to their status. Things evolve and essentially the UKAFTAs evolved into the SHAFTAs. I don't think it helps to delve too much into what goes on behind the scenes at awards events as I'm sure there have been plenty of criticisms made against other porn industry awards and even mainstream awards. That said, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tries to undermine the UKAFTAs by saying they were "announcing invitations to high-profile celebrities who invariably declined" while ignoring information in his own source which reveals, in the case of Brad Pitt, when they do. I think that comments made on personal blogs and open forums lack credibility when gathering evidence and this includes all those given in evidence by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz such as comments from one individual who was disappointed not to recieve an award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is happy to quote from a blog that "if it wasn't for Wikipedia, there would be no proof that it ever even happened." yet if we examine the article which is the subject of this discussion, the evidence actually comes from a reputable source, the British Girls Adult Film Database, which is directly linked in the article. So on this point Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and his source are indisputably wrong. Graemp (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Nick and Hullalloo Wolfowitz, no evidence of her meeting WP:GNG or the new criteria of WP:PORNBIO. The "major" award mentioned, UKAFTA doesn't seem of great significance. Secret ^account 01:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the central issue to this discussion is interpreting PORNBIO#1 "well-known and significant". A number of users including Secret have stated that they believe the UKAFTAs should not be regarded as "well-known and significant" whilst not presenting any information to back up their conclusion. Only one user who reached this conclusion has given any sort of assessment of the UKAFTAs but none of the points he/she made actually addressed the issue of "well-known and significant" apart from one point that was immediately dis-proved by two other users. On the other hand, I provided an assessment of how the UKAFTAs should be regarded as "well-known and significant" yet none of those who disagree have even tried to counter that assessment. Graemp (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish. Your argument is mostly that the award meets the "well-known and significant" standard simply because it is (en)Wikipedia-notable. That's invalid on its face. And, in this specific context, it was rejected by consensus and removed from PORNBIO several years ago, in conjunction with a similar tightening of ANYBIO. As to the nonsense you posted about Brad Pitt attending one of their award ceremonies, the source you allude to actually says "So anyone who tells you that Snoop Dog, Brad Pitt and Frank from Shameless blessed the UK porn industry with their awesome presence at the UKAFTAs in 2007 is either very gullible or just lying".[42]

"And, in this specific context, it was rejected by consensus and removed from PORNBIO several years ago"...where's the evidence for that? During the recent discussions around tightening the PORNBIO standard, it was never mentioned at all that a "well-known" adult "industry award" had to rise to the standard that you are implying here. The fact remains that the UKAFTA's were well-known awards within Great Britian, period. Guy1890 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Anon - my argument above sourced Pornography in Europe and its sources which are helpful for anyone with an open mind. As regards Brad Pitt, the nonsense is not my nonsense but that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who sourced it. The source you quote is contradictory because it also says "in 2007 .... Brad Pitt was more interested in pulling porn stars" which helps make the whole source unreliable in my view. Graemp (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't alter quoted material deceptively, Graemp. The cited source says that the UKAFTA organizers hired six celebrity look-a-likes to hang around the event and that "Brad Pitt" was more interested in pulling porn stars than actually behaving like Brad Pitt, plain as day referring to the hired lookalike's behavior at the event rather than the absent actor's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:37, 9 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, slakr^\ talk / 12:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won a UK Adult Film and Television Award for Best Female Actress, which is a well-known and significant industry award and she therefore passes WP:PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements that apply to this type of actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This commenter either doesn't know of WP:PORNBIO#1 or doesn't think that a 2007 sole industry specific award for a £1 billion industry should count. (see Pornography in Europe mentioned above.) The AfD stats above include a total of 5 users who have voted delete, including the aforementioned Johnpacklambert. Three of these, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Jeffrd10 and Finnegas have a track record of voting to delete any article in this category seemingly regardless of the merits of a specific case. Only one of these five Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has attempted to question the status of the UKAFTAs and only by drawing on a source of dubious authority. It seems unlikely that any form of consensus will be reached in this discussion about the UKAFTAs, when you consider the track record of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Finnegas. However, no one has disputed the fact that in 2007, they were the only UK awards and that the industry in the UK generated £1 billion out of a worldwide total of £20 billion. Graemp (talk) 14:44, 20 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 Cosplay. Consensus is that this shouldn't be a separate article. If there is anything mergeworthy, it can be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay photography

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

Wholly unreferenced despite being around for some years. Single in-line ref is to a blog as is the only external link. No notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge to cosplay Not much independent info here; what little there is belongs in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete. (I don't see any mergeworthy content.) I'd guess that there is something to it; cosplay photography (of which I cheerfully admit ignorance) is not likely to be to cosplay what -- random example -- bridge photography is to bridges; after all, bridges do their (useful) thing even without conscious attention, whereas cosplay seems to crave it. Why my regret? Well, consider this nugget (from an article that can't decide if its subject is a "form" or a "style" of photography): The photos can be black and white, color, any size or shape with any lens, so long as a coslayer [sic] is the main subject. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmine Lafitte

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG. the section 'Awards and Nominations' does not specify which is which. Regardless, there is no sourcing which I can locate that she is notable in terms of having won awards or gaining "significant coverage in reliable sources" Finnegas (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I accept that the article now passes PORNBIO and has numerous refernces to reliable independent sources which satisfy WP:GNG . Finnegas (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom fails WP:PORNBIO And WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. No valid rationale for deletion. The subject passes WP:PORNBIO#1 per the sourced Venus Award win (as minimum). She passes WP:PORNBIO#4 as she has an established mainstream career (a main role in Danielle Arbid's A Lost Man, a supporting role in Olivier Marchal's MR 73, the TF1 show La Méthode Cauet, guest star in an episode of Métal Hurlant Chronicles, spokesmodel of FHM among other things). She also easily passes WP:GNG per multiple French-language sources (see [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] among others). Note that the nominator has been repeatedly warned about his "targeting foreign porn actors for deletion without considering foreign sources" (eg see [50], [51], among other discussions). Cavarrone 05:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other editors have fixed most of the nominator's concerns. Subject passes PORNBIO with a Venus Award win. Cavarrone's points above are also valid. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 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. Consensus is clear that this should be kept in some form. Whether or not that's at its current title or merged/renamed into a new Earthquakes in Sweden article is not an issue for AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Skåne County earthquake

AfDs for this article:

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

this earthquake had no deaths and was hardly reported outside of Sweden. No long term coverage either. Looking at Earthquakes in 2008, all the earthquakes on this list are above 5.0 with the exception of one which had a fatality. There is consensus that 5.0 is the usual minimum for a mention in WP unless there are deaths. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes_in_2009 contains no earthquakes less than 5.0. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The earthquake had no effect except that people felt a shaking. No fatalities and not even material damages reported. And as LibStar says; it falls below the standard threshold of 5.0 on Richers scale for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Maybe it might be mentioned briefly in some geology articles related to Sweden/Skåne, but I don't think we need a formal merger. Iselilja (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In the context of an earthquake in Sweden which is extremely. Makes it notable. Even if it "falls below the threshold of 5.0 in the Richers scale". Had the earthquake happened in Japan I would have agreed. But not this time.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you've inventing your own criterion for notability. It still doesn't meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im not inventing anything. I am telling my personal opinion on an AfD. And frankly you comment on anyones rationale who isnt in line with yours that they "are wrong" and you should let an AfD run its course as your comments make no impact on the final result anyway. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any AfD, when arguing keep you should relate to notability criterion or established consensus, otherwise it's a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It has reasonably solid sources, and is an earthquake of a magnitude unusual for the region (a claim that's also sourced), which seems enough for at least a short verifiable article. Which earthquakes merit an article is a tricky question, but imo a rigid Richter-scale threshold for earthquakes doesn't make much sense, since some 4.x earthquakes are unusual and have sources discussing them, while some 5.x earthquakes aren't and don't. --Delirium (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Although, looking at the discussion of the previous nomination, I do like one of the proposed solutions there: create an Earthquakes in Sweden article and merge this. --Delirium (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be a good solution. But lets wait and see how this AfD discussion end. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 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) 12:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename by Delirium's reasoning. It's also better structurally. Now is the time to decide on the fate of this article. If it gets deleted, it will be harder to do this. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Rename. This earthquake was indeed exceptional by Swedish standards (I was personally one of those who got scared as hell by it) and thus merits mentioning, at least as part of a bigger article. /FredrikT (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- meets WP:GNG and WikiProject Earthquakes notability guidelines (i.e., an unusual event in an area of low seismic activity, and covered in the GEUS scientific journal). If an Earthquakes in Sweden article is created, it would be appropriate for this text to merged and the article name redirected to there. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:00, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John David Ebert

AfDs for this article:

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

Self-published author with no RS. Note that page was previously nominated and decision was KEEP. This decision appears to have been hastily reached and was based on the author's books appearing in a wide variety of search results. Some further information: (1) a check on WorldCat shows that all five of the author's books were published by "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform," a vanity publishing company that sells-in directly to AbeBooks, Amazon, etc., creating - as a result - the appearance of wide-ranging results that aren't accurately reflective of distribution or popularity, [the publisher's identity appears to have been overlooked by the original AfD commenters] (2) there are NO (zero) RS (or even non-RS sources) for this entry and a 3 year old unresolved notability tag, (3) subject of this bio has contributed heavily to this entry himself and has stated here that the one external link on the page is to a low-traffic movie review website he manages, further demonstrating the vanity nature of this article (in that discussion he also, amusingly, accuses Wikipedia of taking bribes from RottenTomatoes which is worth a read in and of itself - he is also cautioned not to link to his YouTube videos in this article, however, links to his YouTube videos have subsequently been inserted by single-purpose [possibly sock] accounts) BlueSalix (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the author's books appear to consist partly of his own life philosophy, and partly of interviews with a variety of well known (and, themselves, notable) conspiracy theorists and Coast to Coast AM regulars like Terrence McKenna, etc. It should be noted that people like Sheldrake and McKenna literally do/did every little radio show, podcast, self-published book interview and e-zine guest request that comes through the door and, while they may be notable, it would be very dangerous to assign notability by process of attachment just because someone booked them as a guest or interview subject, as that appears to be a low hurdle to manage. BlueSalix (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He wrote one book that received marginal attention, Twilight of the Clockwork God. It was reviewed in the American Library Association periodical Booklist[52], in Publishers Weekly[53] and Library Journal[54]. However, these are summary (or trade) reviews and the spirit of WP:AUTHOR #3 (and its corollary WP:NBOOK #1) is that we need at least some reviews of the longer opinion type, or academic reviews (see 3 types of book reviews). It also doesn't help that Twilight was his first book and apparently no one saw fit to review anything beyond. I did find a couple unreliable source reviews but they are FRINGE type. I didn't do a lot of searching for general GNG sourcing so if someone can find enough there in combo with the above three reviews I might change position thus the "weak". -- GreenC 16:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search of the Academic Search Premier database confirms GreenC's findings. Ebert published an overview called "The New Novel" in Antioch Magazine in 2004. None of his own works are reviewed, at all. Delete for non-notability.Pernoctus (talk) 21:36, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did find a mention of this guy in a scholarly text, so there is the potential for more sources. I'll try to see what I can find under his book titles, since the name is bringing up a lot of false positives for similar Eberts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This link asserts that Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith wrote a review of Clockwork God in 2000, so there's definitely some sourcing out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I do kind of hold a similar opinion about trade reviews, so far there has not yet been a consensus on whether or not to discount all trade reviews. Not all trades and short reviews are created equal, which I would imagine is why there has never been a really clear consensus. After all, Horn Book Guide would be considered a trade review technically but it's one of the most respected ones out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the trades do add to notability and if there were trade reviews for every book I would say Keep, but the trades decided to drop coverage after the first book. I can't tell the depth or character of the review in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith if it's a 4 sentence notice or in-depth. The fringe nature of this topic makes me error on the side of caution towards delete. In terms of trades in general, you're right there's nothing in the guidelines about it, just that the sources are sufficient to write an article with beyond a summary. -- GreenC 16:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith review is here. 456 words. — goethean 23:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Google Scholar, Twilight of the Clockwork God has been cited by eight books,[55] Dead Celebrities, Living Icons by four,[56] The new media invasion by two (but they are in German?).[57] Celluloid Heroes and Mechanical Dragons has been referred to by at least one[58]. Joseph Campbell referred to Ebert in the acknowlegements of The Mythic Dimension: Selected Essays 1959-1987, calling him "an essential collaborator".[59] Ebert's Celluloid Heroes & Mechanical Dragons has a foreword by NYTBR-reviewed author William Irwin Thompson. Thompson has referred to Ebert's website in an online article.[60] That combined with the trade and other reviews is enough sourcing to write a short well-sourced article, which would of course be quite different from the article's current state. — goethean 18:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at these citations (just a random sample, I didn't look at all of them) it appears many were, themselves, self-published books or - in a few cases - dissertations (in those cases the references were singular, fleeting and tertiary and from schools that aren't exactly jostling for the Ivies, e.g. TSU-San Marcos). I suppose those might establish notability in the lowest of interpretations as to what constitutes notability; maybe a kind-of "everyone is famous for something" way of looking at things. For now, however, I maintain my Delete support. BlueSalix (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - a tough call this one but there definitely is a prime face case for the author reaching the basic threshold for author notability as worthy of notice, even though he is only self published. Hard to say if his singular notable title is notable enough but I'll give the article the benefit of the doubt at this stage, especially considering there has been plenty of debate surrounding it. CrookedwithaK (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a strikethrough on this for convenience of the reviewing admin as the account was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet 90 minutes after posting this comment. BlueSalix (talk) 20:20, 10 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, slakr^\ talk / 12:36, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Izenda

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

An article about a software company that obliquely hides what it actually does. The article has sources, but they seem to be all in the advertising / press release vein. I did find a discussion forum link here which reveals that the company's owner was struggling to understand the terms unique selling point and SQL injection in 2005, which suggest the rest of the article is probably puffed up a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable company lacking news/sources of substance. Fails WP:Notability. Microsoft source no longer features alleged video, if it ever existed on the site at all. (a search on the Microsoft site displays no results for 'izenda'). BusinessWeek source proves that company exists but again, notability is not established. Bacefook (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Not notable. The obfuscation of the company's business does not help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 1 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 Battle Tendency. (and/or redirect if insufficient content exists) slakr^\ talk / 04:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Joestar

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

This does not establish notability independent of Battle Tendency 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) 18:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per GNG BlueSalix (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle Tendency. It's possible there are enough sources for notability out there (being a major protagonist in a sub series of a fairly notable work), but the chance are they won't be forthcoming before the end of the AfD period. However we have a target page for a summary of the character to be merged to. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle Tendency per Dandy. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:30, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real-world coverage or sourcing to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle Tendency - No notability outside of the series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What referenced content is there to merge that will help better the merge target? I would have no objection to a Redirect - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:39, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of specific absorption rate for devices

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of low-radiation smartphones

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

This appears to be a run-around of a deleted article, List of low-radiation smartphones, which was deleted via AfD. The information is somewhat different, but at the end of the day, it's the same original research for an inevitably incomplete list that can never be an encyclopedia article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussions at the old AfD, the closed CfD, and the currently ongoing RfD. The issues of original research identified in those discussions was satisfactorily dealt with - the information presented here is directly attributable to independent sources (SAR tests submitted to the FCC), we're not applying any synthesized analysis to it (like whether the phone is supported by a free OS, which is not relevant), and hasn't been filtered through any criteria ("low-radiation") that we invented. Ivanvector (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused by your keep !vote here given that you stated in the prior AFD that "SAR tests...are meaningless for comparing one device to another." Which would seem to attack the very concept of this comparison list, but maybe I'm not understanding what you meant there. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically referring to the criteria used to define that list. At the time, the list only included "low-radiation" phones, but that definition isn't defined anywhere (it was invented on that page). Implying that one phone is better or safer than another phone based on SAR measurement is incorrect because the actual radiation absorbed varies wildly depending on the operation of the phone and the operator. The FCC uses SAR tests to certify devices for sale but doesn't do any further analysis; the "low-radiation" list was synthesizing it. There was also wording that suggested a skewed POV favouring a certain Android OS, which I objected to. See what that list looked like. I think we've cleaned all of that up. We did start to talk about what the proper name of this list should be, but the editor who has done most of the work has never participated in any of these discussions despite being invited, so the talk faded out without consensus to do anything. As far as process, the list originated on the SAR page and was moved out, then was built out with synthesized info, then was deleted, so it was logical to recreate the original list within the SAR article. The problems were addressed early when the list was recreated and what we have now is substantially improved over the list that was deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm personally struggling with seeing how this list is substantially different than the previous one. This literally looks like what I'd expect the deleted list to look like had we not deleted it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the format of this list is basically the same as the deleted one (going by memory). The difference is that this list is neutral and balanced; the old one wasn't, by virtue of only including phones from a certain OS and that met an invented criteria. Ivanvector (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, the table itself is almost identical, but most of the prose has been deleted. So now it's a table assembled with FCC data and supplemented with mobile device specs. If a reputable secondary source discusses or explains this data for laypeople, then that is something that can be summarized and cited in Mobile phone radiation and health. What you have is a start at something of potential interest and importance to consumers, but it is too technical and lacks any explication, let alone an executive summary. The trouble is, Wikipedia is not the place for publishing this data, and you're just straitjacketing yourself by trying to sanitize it to meet inclusion criteria. Those criteria notwithstanding, Wikipedia is not even the most effective venue for doing what you're trying to do. If you had evidence that a meteor was going to make a 500-megaton impact on Earth, would you publish to Wikipedia? —Ringbang (talk) 02:39, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:26, 30 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) 12:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia doesn't just publish tables of raw data. Their needs to be a source explaining the importance/notability of this data in order for it to have its own article.AioftheStorm (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is explained at Specific absorption rate which this list grew too large for. I had previously tried to summarize in the lede on this page. Also, I moved your comment below the relists for procedural clarity; please move it back if you object. Ivanvector (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources describing the radiation from X-ray machines as being significant, but a table of comparison of different X-ray machine radiation levels would still not be notable enough for its own article. That is because, per WP:CSC, every entry in a list has to be notable enough for its own article, and the specific absorption rates of devices are not notable enough for their own articles, thus a list of specific absorption rates does not adhere to notability guidelines.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:55, 13 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry United F.C.

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

New football club playing at the very lowly 12th level of English football, at which many teams simply play on open pitches in public parks. Accepted cutoff for presumed noability at WP:FOOTY has for many years been level 10, i.e. the level at which teams are eligible to enter the FA Cup. PROD was disputed by Nfitz (talk · contribs) with the rationale "I thought Level 12 was generally the dividing line. None the less, seems to have (barely) attracted enough media coverage to meet WP:GNG". I disagree, so I have brought it here....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. There is some coverage (WSC, Coventry Observer), but I don't think this is sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON (i.e. people hoping it to be another FC United / AFC Wimbledon, but it hasn't done enough yet). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN as has not competed in a national competition. Does seem potentially like a case of TOOSOON and would be happy to change my vote if additional coverage along the lines of FC United / AFC Wimbledon can be found. Fenix down (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Controversy and founding could be covered in Coventry City F.C. though a full merge would be excessive. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coventry City F.C. until such time as it becomes independently notable. Giant Snowman 13:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:GNG, or to be notable otherwise. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – insufficient coverage to be deemed notable at this time. C 679 13:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not worthy of notice at this stage and would likely set a precedent for an avalanche of similar non notable teams worldwide. Such as the team I'm currently playing on, a team name I will not mention or propose for inclusion :) CrookedwithaK (talk) 10:52, 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lilah Richcreek

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

Poorly referenced article - one acceptable source, one unacceptable blog and an IMDb page. A Google search turns up little to put Ms. Richcreek on the right side of WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One sentence and it fails WP:GNG this one is a no brainer.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1, 2, 3, 4, Lilah's article here no more BlueSalix (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete! One source from The Hollywood Reporter mentions her name clearly, and the refined sentence of the page now stands as a more acceptable revision of this page. More information was added to comply with the encyclopedic rules, and as it stands it appears to be a stub. I don't believe the article should be deleted because The Hollywood Reporter is a nationally reliable third-party source; I contest deletion to the fullest extent perceivable, and will do anything to keep this article up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.100 (talk) 20:43, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single sentence, with no obvious means of being able to expand it via better sources, means at best I can say she doesn't deserve an article now. As for "The Hollywood Reporter is a nationally reliable third-party source", it looks to be as reliable as The Sun from my point of view ie: where accurate neutral reporting of facts takes very much a back seat to gossip and sensationalism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The article has been updated and, as far as I can see, a one-sentence biography is known to be a stub. The desire to delete this article seems to stem from dislike of the person itself; biased. The Hollywood Reporter felt her to be important enough to mention, the writer of the article thereof from the reliable source, so sensationalism is not much of an argument when the fact remains that it's a notable source. One notable source is all it takes to be notable, even if that notability is very small, the sources are what Wikipedia deems as reliable. People keep nitpicking at every detail possible here, but it's a can of worms just being opened. One source, a stub article, request for external notability; done. There's no point I can see in wanting this deleted; simply mark up the notability citation, keep as a stub, and if there's no further improvement in this article over time it may then be appropriately requested for deletion. As of now this is simply biased against this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.173 (talk) 21:29, 1 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, and kudos for improvements. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic reasoner

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

This article is basically a link farm, with a short unsourced description at the top and an unsourced comparison table which may be original research. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Not notable because there are too many published articles about it" isn't a convincing rationale.

This is indeed a crap article that fails to explain the significance of the topic. Probably as a direct result of Wikipedia's dislike of SemWeb topics and regular deletion of them. It doesn't matter to SemWeb people that this is a crap article, because they already know what reasoners are and they no longer give a damn about WP's foibles. However it's a failing of WP, and WP is failing its readership, to refuse to cover this topic. Perhaps WP would do rather better if it stopped trying to delete articles on quality grounds and instead made some effort to either fix them, or at least to stop alienating the people who could do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are misinterpreting my reason for suggesting deletion. A list of software and external links to its developers, forums, company websites, etc., is not the same as "published articles" about the topic. For the record, I nominated the page because if the unsourced information and all of the external links in the body of the article were removed, there would only be an almost empty page left. I don't know anything about any dislike of this topic; it sounds interesting to me. If you are familiar with semantic reasoners and know of published sources (not blogs, forms and other user contributed or developer websites) which explain it, why not add them? Maybe textbooks, computer magazines, professional journals? The external links would still have to be deleted, but some of the software items appear to have Wikipedia articles and could be moved to a "See also" section if there was an article to go with it. You are right, of course, that experts in the field do not need this article. It's readers like me who have a general interest in software and programming who would enjoy reading a properly written and sourced article. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your reason was. All I know is both WP policy, and the effects of your nomination. You ask SemWeb-knowledgeable people to contribute, but if articles don't then meet your invented standard (which isn't even WP:policy), throw them away. If you're not getting enough contribution, throw away even more of it. How could the result be anything else? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now, remove the one useful part of the article so that even people who understand it lose any useful value. Way to go! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find good sources on the topic which approach it in a similar way, discussing various specific tools which exist for the purpose — see Advanced Techniques in Web Intelligence, for example. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've culled all the non-notable entries (superficially, I didn't search for RS for the redlinks) in the lists in the article and transferred the possibly OR comparison table to the talk page for future work, and removed what looked like a couple of promotional bits. The lead needs to be rewritten according to reliable sources. But a GScholar search shows 524 hits for "semantic reasoner" and 4,590 hits for "semantic reasoning"; this seems like a highly notable concept. A notable topic and article problems that are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's now policy that list entries have to meet WP:Notable? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of cleanup of the link spam, I treated this as a list-based article, and per MOS:LIST and WP:CLN, these lists have entries that are supposed to be notable--either they link to a WP article (with the presumption of notability implied by the article) or they are sourced to independent reliable sources. There are other ways such lists can be justified as notable; for instance WP:LISTN suggests that if a list as a group is considered notable, that could be used too. It may be that there are RS out there comparing semantic reasoners. If so, great--we could use those to build a sourceable list and avoid OR and SYNTH. But without those, culling based on notability builds a defensible kernel of an article that can withstand the slings and arrows of AfD. And instead of simply kvetching about ill-treatment of a topic by WP folk, please pitch in and help build this article on stronger foundations. --Mark viking (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Kvetching"? "Pitch in and help"? Sure, because it's not as if I ever create any content, is it. WTF though would I ever work on SemWeb stuff, when key parts of it are up for blanket deletion if there's any question of article quality (which is no part of our conditions for deletion). A "defensible kernel of an article that can withstand the slings and arrows of AfD" is utter crap and totally against what WP should do, and used to do, per WP:IMPERFECT. We need an editing environment where editors are encouraged to contribute, and to do so gradually if that's what available to WP. What we have here is one that invites contributions from experts, then turns around and pisses all over them for no good reason.

If a project is even thinking that this topic deserves outright deletion and ignoring it from that point onwards (and that's what an AfD nomination is), a project that prioritises rappers and pokemon over a core SemWeb topic like this, then that's simply a project of no interest to the editors who might otherwise fix it. I don't know why, but WP does this whenever SemWeb topics come up. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do create good content and I respect your contributions. I apologize for the kvetching comment. I agree that WP:IMPERFECT should be a guiding principle. But the reality at AfD is that "this article is horrible, let's blow it up per WP:TNT or WP:ESSAY or, etc." can be an effective strategy for deletion, even with a notable topic. For a worthy topic, IMO the best way to counter that complaint is to rewrite, or at least cut out the worst parts of the article. If you think I've cut out valuable parts of the article along with the promotional link spam, feel free to revert. --Mark viking (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, I would like to reiterate that, as the nominator, I was in no way influenced by the fact that this article was about a "SemWeb topic". If articles like this were all being nominated by the same group of editors, it might be fair to think there was bias. If there is such a group I don't know about them and certainly would not agree with them. I didn't nominate the article because of its topic, but because of all the inappropriate content. It looks as though several editors are working on improving the article and it will likely be kept. If SemWeb articles are regularly being nominated for deletion, perhaps it's because those who write them are busily involved in their specialty and don't take the time to check on what type of information and sources should be in an encyclopedia article. I too have had articles deleted that were on topics I felt were important, so I don't go around frivolously nominating articles on topics I don't like. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the official website of the software listed calls it a "reasoner" of one type or another, and they are listed elsewhere as different types of "Reasoners" then its a real thing. I see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Category:Rule_Reasoner where they call some of the software on the list Rule Reasoner. The first software listed has on its official website at http://bossam.wordpress.com/ where it calls itself an "ontology reasoner" and "semantic web". Dream Focus 00:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT delete per WP:OR. Mostly unsourced article making weird claims and it's unclear why many of the inference engines it lists qualify for this category. There are only handful of examples that would properly qualify for this topic [61] (but they are not given in this wiki article!) and they are all not-wiki-notable individually (Pellet, OWLIM, FaCT++, RacerPro), and all such proper examples are OWL-related, so they can be covered in the OWL article well enough. Another book covering the same stuff [62] calls this type of software (more appropriately) ontology reasoner. Perhaps redirecting this page to Web Ontology Language (OWL) is the best solution per WP:BLAR. If anyone find useful material in the page's history, it can be merged there later. But most of it fails WP:OR/WP:V as far as the claims go, starting with absurdly board definition etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the 'absurdly broad' definition in the lead is directly sourced to the first ref you give, a close paraphrasing/copyvio in fact. So that bit is verifiable. --Mark viking (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you prepend "In the field of the semantic web," (which is implicit in a book chapter about... duh... the semantic web, then the def is not absurdly broad anymore, but Wikipedia (as a whole) isn't a book about the semantic web, some context is needed before one defines "reasoner" in such terms (or equates facts with axioms). Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that book is from 2010 and this article existed from 2007, so I'm not sure who copied who, just yet. The first version of the article didn't have the def, but I don't have the time now to investigate further right now. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:10, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entirely notable article, certainly not a link farm Anne, and your Afd reasoning is dubious at best. Are you trying to get rid of the article because it has too many links. It a huge and expanding field. The article is clearly passes WP:GNG.scope_creep talk 15:17 02 Feb 2014 (UTC)

In Anne's defense, many non-notable links were removed after nomination. While I disagree that deletion is the best approach, I believe the nomination was done in good faith. --Mark viking (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has changed considerably. The version that I nominated had many external links in the body of the article, unsourced original research, and almost no sources for verification of the information ([63]). However, according to Wikipedia:External links, external links should only be in the "external links" section, not in paragraphs or bulleted sections in the main article, which should have wikilinks and citations instead. It's not just that some of the links were to (apparently) non-notable web pages, but that they were there at all. I too would rather see an article improved rather than deleted, but how do I explain to new users that they have to remove the external links in their articles if the experienced users don't have to do the same? If every single link was to a world famous "Semantic reasoner", they should all be internal links. Looking at the article now, it seems to me that some of the items that are currently in the "External links" section are actually references, and should be moved to that section, whereas the links next to the software items in the article should be either made into citations if they are links to published articles, or moved to the external links section if they lead to websites created by the software's developers. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry Anne. scope_creep talk 15:08 04 Feb 2014 (UTC)

Keep - This appears to be closely tied with Web Ontology Language, Knowledge representation and reasoning, Ontology language and Knowledge base. Organization of this information can certainly be improved but I strongly believe that deleting or discussion at AfD is not the best way to get there. ~KvnG 18:28, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Risdall Advertising Agency

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this at AfD back in July, saying "Regional advertising agency. No apparent importance". It was defended by the article creator as "One of the larger agencies in the Twin Cities market with clients across the country and internationally. Also the same size as Martin Williams Advertising and Campbell Mithun" As nobody else commented even after 2 relistings, it was closed (properly) as non-consensus.

The reply to the reasons for keeping is, of course, that there are many other advertising agencies whose articles should be deleted. , and that "one of the larger" is not the same thing as "notability. I would now at promotionalism as an additional reason: a list of a firm's clients is not approptiate contents, but advertising.

DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Clio award carries a fair bit of prestige, doesn't it? Whether the same is true of the Clio Healthcare awards (inaugurated in 2009), I don't know. One of the citations says this agency won two of the latter. —rybec 11:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments A lot of the content is sourced to some bloke called Risdall. Among what isn't, I particularly like this bit: Risdall becomes the first advertising agency in the world to be organically listed on Google for the search term "advertising agency." The source for this inscrutable statement actually says: Of more than 180,000 firms worldwide, RAA is the first organically listed on a Google search for the term "Advertising agency." (When you Google something, two lists of results come up: The paid list of relevant ads, and the organic — or, unpaid — list of actual search results.) I'll attempt a translation into English: When I search in Google for the term "Advertising agency", at the top of the list of hits is RAA. The writer posted it at MinnPost (of Minneapolis). I'll wildly guess that his Googling showed a preoccupation with Minn. Possibly his IP number identified him as being in Minn. Well, he did write this back in 2008, when the Google "bubble" wasn't as well known then as it is now. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to search results was deleted. Client list helps indicate the agency's regional/national prominence.--Jansenminneapolis (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC) SpeedyDelete Every edit seems to be traced back to Jansenminneapolis, seems suspicious.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:31, 30 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) 12:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apart from being spammy, there's not much to indicate that they meet WP:CORP. They're probably very good at what they do, but there's a big leap from "competent" to "notable". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 18 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Roberts (model)

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

This BLP has no references. Please either add references or delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could merge to Simone (2002 film): that's her only major acting role, and the story of her involvement should be in the film's article. Or could merge to article on husband Andrew Niccol. She may just meet WP:GNG, but part of her media coverage derives from being married to Niccol. She doesn't meet WP:NACTORS (no other major roles: recurring role in 5 eps of Fast Forward, small roles in The Host, In Time, one-off guest roles the listed TV series) unless you want to claim she meets WP:NACTORS #3 with her role in Simone. I'm on the fence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 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)} 12:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom BlueSalix (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep subject to possible merge and redirect. She is clearly notable for Simone (2002 film), with multiple reliable sources that focused on her. Her pictures are all over the Web and her modeling activities are widely mentioned, but as best I could find the coverage of her modeling is found in the sorts of websites that we usually discount for notability and reliability purposes. As a professional model and working actress, she is not really the sort of low-profile private person with which WP:BLP1E is primarily concerned, but under the instructions of WP:BIO1E as well as BLP1E, the right ultimate result here may be to merge and redirect this content to a new section of the Simone (2002 film) article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:34, 22 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) 08:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it has been 12 years since her one major role, and was not even credited in that role at first. I would change my vote if significant coverage in reliable sources could be found, but so far I have not found any. Seaphoto^Talk 04:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:30, 30 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, slakr^\ talk / 12:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The titular role in a film, numerous guest TV roles, and a recurring role in one TV show. It's not a ton, but coupled with a decent modeling career and some reliable coverage, it seems enough to me. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:28, 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Haller

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

No indication of significance Ireneshih (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ireneshih - No indication of significance? She's been on a ton of Boards, some of which include the World Security Institute, The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and being the Board Chair at Free The Children, one of the most successful non-profits in the world. The references in the article include a Forbes article about her being honored at a Forbes Women Leadership Event, a Huffington Post article detailing her life and work, a website that journalists use for sources, and numerous credible non-profit websites. This is my first article on Wikipedia, and certainly won't be my last, but I thought that Haller was an interesting subject for my first piece. I was surprised she didn't already have one! -United191 10:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate significance, just take a look at the 'books' link you set up... when you click it, the first to come up is quite obviously Haller - entitled "Do Your Giving While You Are Living: Inspirational Lessons." United191 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are we moving forward with this? United191 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't quite find her to be notable as Wikipedia defines it. Philanthropy is nice, serving on boards of directors is fine, being an activist is all very well - but none of those things by themselves amount to notability. In order to have an article here, a person must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources, and I could find none. The only Reliable Source cited in the article is the obituary of her first husband. The other citations are either based on information she herself supplied, or are not what we consider a Reliable Source. And I could not find significant material for either Eva Haller or Eva Roman on a search. It sounds like she is a wonderful and remarkable woman, but without the independent sources to prove it, we can't have an article on her. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is my first article on Wikipedia, but I did A LOT of research for it, to avoid this specifically. Although the only reference that you said was trustworthy was her late husband’s obit, there are article in the page from Forbes, the Huffington Post, Jane Fonda’s blog, University websites, and many more. I’ve been using Wikipedia for years, and I’ve seen tons of people with less ‘notability’ than this woman. Understandably, some of the information from these references came directly from her, but some absolutely did not. I invite you to go and read the two books I cited, and the book that comes up when you search for her via the book database on the AfD page. I read them in their entirety.

To me, there’s also a principle of the matter. People from her generation, especially that did a lot before the Internet age, don’t have an extensive online record of their life. I went through all of the information that could be found online, which is extensive and consistent, and THEN more external sources to make sure that this is a reliable article.

For many people who aren’t necessarily at celebrity status, like this woman, there is no one place that lists everything that they’ve done, except for Wikipedia. If she isn’t ‘notable,’ there are thousands of other pages that should be taken down. She is the Board Chairwoman, at 83, for the largest non-profit in Canada, Free The Children. She's been around since their inception… and because of their work incorporating all of society into a child's education, their success is used as a model for other charities and people trying to build in Third World countries!

She’s a Nazi survivor, philanthropist, and change maker. Three of her projects have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (one is Free The Children). She is not only notable, but she is significant. She’s made much more of a change through being on these Boards, it seems like, than you or I will probably ever make in our lives! We need to keep a record of these people that have helped create and shape society so that when generations upon generations after us go back to look and find out who was responsible, the record will accurately stand!

If we write her off, then we are essentially going to be writing off an entire generation of people's information that have limited resources from which we can research… They had the unfortunate experience to be born before the Internet age… what we are telling them is that their accomplishments and contribution to society did not matter. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia to record all the important people and events that we would find throughout history, not just the ones who happen to be fortunate enough to be born in the Internet age!

This is a woman who has been given awards by the United Nations, AARP, Forbes, and many others, at the very least, that is notable.

Let’s find a way to make her page stay. You have to realize, that when you say we should delete it, you’re essentially writing her life off as not notable enough to be remembered and unbiasedly reflected upon on Wikipedia, based of off a number of reliable sources.United191 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Forbes and Huffpost have a reasonable amount of coverage, but that's about it toward meeting WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post & Forbes articles are great, but there are many more sources to be found... I'd suggest you also take a look at the Red Room Magazine article, and all of her bios from different Boards. They are all consistent with what the other publications are saying, and provide even more detail and context. United191 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see clearly that she has met the criteria for WP:BIO with the two basic criteria for any article: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times - she has been honored by the UN, Forbes, AARP, and the Rubin Museum, just to name the ones that I found. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - she has been with Free the Children since the year after they were founded, and has lead the Board since then... it's now the largest non-profit in Canada. She's been on National Security Boards, by receiving the AARP Mentorship Award, we know she has mentored countless people, and lastly, she's been awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award by UNFPA - as is verified by pictures of her on their Facebook page, and text on their website. United191 (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone reviewing this has some time tomorrow, watch 60 Minutes on CBS before the Super Bowl. It looks like her project, Free The Children, will be featured. United191 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on this? I think the best possible solution is to keep the article and continue editing it... the notability is definitley here, and it seems like everybody has aknowledged that (even MelanieN on her own talk page). United191 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week since the extension of this page... any more input? How shall we proceed? United191 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC. Also, the nomination's rationale "no indication of significance" is vague relative to content in the article, in which indication of significance does exist. Some source examples that demonstrate this subject passes WP:BASIC include:

Forbes
Do Your Giving While You Are Living. pp. 71-72. ISBN 160037851X
Huffington Post (newsblog)

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with Northamerica1000 - passes WP:BASIC with flying colours, and I see definitive significance. The last few AfDs I've commented on today haven't had the amount of reliable sources that this one does, like the ones in the above list. Maybe some other sources can be added, like the book above, but they're already relatively well covered in the original version. SayItRight1 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added the book Northamerica1000 mentioned to the article... SayItRight1 (talk) 20:00, 9 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Light

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

No indication of significance Ireneshih (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Band and album The Dirty Future have coverage in local and student press[64][65][66][67] but aside from that I only found one review, in PopMatters[68]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In terms of notability, the PopMatters review is a pretty good start, but I can't find anything else apart from local coverage, so I cannot see how these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 08:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the feedback. Additional information and references have been added including references to Old Light's connections to important bands. While true this is an indie band whose releases to date are sub-major label, they are currently a well respected and important part of the Pacific Northwest music scene, and have many significant connections to important bands and personnel. Old Light may be small, but they are growing fast and certainly meet the basic criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia in my opinion. Thank you for your time. User_talk:Kwikiphone —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for participating Kwikiphone. It doesn't really matter that Old Light's releases have not been on major labels. While it is clear that they have some affiliations to some notable people in the scene, notability is not inherited, and it just isn't clear how these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. The PopMatters review is the kind of thing we are looking for - if there were just a few more examples of coverage in reliable sources like this then I'd be inclined to !vote to keep this article, but as it stands I just can't see much beyond local coverage, and that isn't enough to be included here. — sparklism ^hey! 14:01, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 30 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, slakr^\ talk / 12:47, 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 08:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hirsh

AfDs for this article:

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

First AfD ended in no consensus with little participation about three months ago. Lets try again. Borderline at best on notability. I have to lean to delete here, but maybe we can get more participation this time. Safiel (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google turned up several stories about, and interviews with this guy in WP:RS publications in the first couple pages of hits. He seems to have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of stories on the web featuring or interviewing him as a commentator on technology — but that's not the same thing as stories or interviews where he's the subject of the coverage. The latter kind of coverage is what we're after when determining whether there's enough verifiable content about a person to support a Wikipedia article or not, and there isn't a lot of that out there. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion At the very least he can be noted in a couple sentences in his wife's articles. I'malso not convinced he isn't independently notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion One of Canada's leading commentator and broadcaster about technological matters. Has a major nation-wide audience on highly respectable Canadian Broadcasting Company. The AFD is astonishing. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person can quite easily be a "leading commentator and broadcaster" with a "major nation-wide audience" while still not actually being the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article. I've heard of the guy too, but the fact that there isn't a whole lot of coverage about him is not "astonishing" — media personalities actually fall quite frequently on the wrong side of the distinction between I've-heard-of-them "fame" and properly-sourceable "notability", because the fact that they appear in media coverage of other topics is not the same thing as being the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above and in the first AFD, the problem here is that while he frequently appears in media coverage of other subjects as an authority on those matters, he isn't the subject of enough media coverage — the kind where he's the topic of the coverage — to write a properly verifiable article that cites enough reliable sources to get past WP:GNG. We actually have this problem quite frequently with television and radio personalities — their names are well-known enough that they seem notable, but since they aren't the subject of the coverage it's almost impossible to actually write an encyclopedia article about them without relying almost entirely on primary sources like their Speakers Bureau profile or their "meet our personalities" blurb on the website of the television or radio outlet that they work for. He's certainly notable enough in principle that he should qualify for an article — but this article, as written, is not good enough to be kept, and there aren't enough sources out there about him to improve it. Delete, but do so without prejudice against future recreation if and when there are more good sources that can be cited. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[69] and [70] are both half-decent pieces that are about him, rather than him providing his opinions. They are, however, local sources. I would say, however, that these do combine with the fact that he seems to be CBC's go-to man for this sort of thing to convey some notability, as much per WP:COMMONSENSE. As the coverage on him is generally local, however, this is a Weak keep. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:26, 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 keep. Consensus that additional info about judo career establish notability.Mojo Hand (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alida Gray

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article and sources fail to establish notability as per WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her notability isn't established based on MMA. Her notability is based on being an Olympic Judo athlete. Typically a person who is an olympic judo athlete is an automatic qualifier for notability. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She did fight for the World Series of Fighting Title [71]. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). [72] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She was an alternate and did not compete at the olympics.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being an olympic alternate means that person is top 2 in a nation at a weight class. That is highly notable. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Marisa Pedulla defeated Jo Anne Quiring in final match of that weight class (under 52 kg) at the 1996 trials.Mdtemp (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[73]CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not notable as an MMA fighter. Not clear what being an Olympic "alternate" means (see my comment above), but it's not enough to claim automatic notability. There are no matches for "Alida Gray" at judoinside.com, which includes U.S. national championship events since 1953 and Olympic trials since 1992. A search for Alida Gray (+judo, but without MMA or Aguilar or wiki) turns up an article on her as the Cal Poly softball shortstop in "SOFTBALL BEAT PLAYER SPOTLIGHT", which is not enough to show she meets WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on discussion below I believe she meets WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

commenthttp://wsof.com/news-view.php?id=126 , http://www.graymma.com/index.php/alida-gray — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't listed as one of the 1995 national champions (Jo Anne Quiring was) and I can't find any record of her at the world championships (although I could only find a listing of the top 8). I did find some records for a "Yvette Gray" at judoinside.com--could these be the same person? I couldn't find any evidence of her using two names, but it appears Yvette would meet WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mdtemp, you are correct. Her name is Alida Yvette Gray.[74]

Her record is shown as being. Date Result Judo Event Comp. Cat.
03-May-1997 3 US National Championships Ft. Lauderdale NC U52
26-Mar-1997 1 Liberty Bell Judo Classic Philadelphia IT U52
09-Mar-1997 5 Czech Cup Prague WCup U52
13-Apr-1996 3 US National Championships San Jos� (Cal) NC U52
13-Jan-1996 3 US Olympic Trials NT U52
29-Apr-1995 2 US National Championships Indianapolis NC U52
09-Apr-1994 2 US National Championships Irvine NC U52
Help us to find
Send date 1 US National Junior Olympics Scott Rice NJC U52
[75] CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Criteria establishing notability should be in the article but in any case participation in the above events does not establish notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment those are the events she received a medal in. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the information in the article. Then the notability can be properly judged.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[76]CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the actual article - when articles (like this one) are proposed for deletion it is initially based on what the article does or does not contain.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not notable for MMA, but clearly meets WP:MANOTE with four podium finishes at the U.S. national judo championships. Nice work by CrazyAces489 and Mdtemp. Papaursa (talk) 04:39, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:MANOTE. Drunk in Paris (talk) 23:40, 5 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Physics Research Group

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

Non-notable research group. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. Not even close to meeting the WP:GNG. PROD removed without improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very Week keep the scientific journals might prove notability but i'm not sure.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are external sources available which discuss some of this research group's findings. Would that boost the credibility of this article beyond potential deletion? Pmriherd (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What we're looking for is in depth coverage, in any media, that isn't linked back to the group, their host institutions or their staff. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Research groups of this sort within university departments are almost never notable, and there is no reason to think otherwise of this one; the title is not distinctive, and there is no need for even a redirect. 65.88.88.208 (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional citations from external sources have been added to the page. Pmriherd (talk) 0:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.48.6 (talk)

I agree that external sources have been added to the article, but they're not independent. They're things like patents granted to members of the group and popular science articles based on interviews with team members and reuse of team-members illustrations. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Appears to be someone's lab, started in 2001 -- that is to say, it's a dozen years old. So it's not especially long-lived, and I'm not sure that it's productivity stands out in quantity or quality. I'm not convinced that it's notable more than similar sorts of research groups, but I'm not familiar with the field to say. --Lquilter (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merging any relevant content, to University of Florida College of Engineering, where it's located. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:09, 9 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, slakr^\ talk / 12:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual research groups are rarely notable. I was unable to find any in-depth, independent RS about this particular research group, so it fails notability per WP:GNG. Papers or patents by individuals of this group may contribute to those individuals' notability, but doesn't tell us anything about the the group itself; that is, notability is not inherited. In cases like this a redirect might be reasonable, but "Applied Physics Research Group" is such a common name for an applied physics research group that it would be unreasonable to redirect to a particular university department. "Applied Physics Research Group (University of Florida)" could be a possible redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a particularly impressive output Aliceswift1998 (talk) 14:24, 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 keep. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Platter

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

No indication of significance and third party reference links Itsalleasy (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article makes claims of significance, which is inaptly-applied CSD criteria not applicable here. Article contains links to substantial coverage in third-party reliable sources, so easily passes WP:GNG. Also passes WP:ARTIST #4 with exhibition at Museum of Modern Art --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Enock4seth blanked most of article without good explanation (I don't know what "close paragraphing issues" are). This version has considerably more detail, including material from reviews. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to earlier version -- no explanation given for deleting good references.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my edit all the refs I've removed were not valid via my browser, hence I removed and replaced them. Sorry if my contribution to prevent article from deletion was inappropriate. And I think we should keep this article. Thanks. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 16:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Eggishorn. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:04, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs fixing...Modernist (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree that it needs cleanup. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:05, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Environmental Directory

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in what user:DGG thinks of this subject's notability. Is it widely held by libraries? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's a online file, that would not necessarily be cataloged, so I'm checking. I see only 24 libraries in Worldcat; But the collection I know best, Gale's ENVIROnetBASE : environmental resources online, (the successor to Gale Environmental Sourcebook) has only 28. The publication of directories was much more important before the internet. In any case, the best description of the resources is here Envirosource, since it is a free search engine, has only 4 listings, but It's the (free) place I would recommend. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 14 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, Wizardman 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm currently on the fence; there are several reliable source mentions of the database, but they are fairly incidental ("this exists") mentions. The directory's official website, in Japanese, is currently a portal to deriheru (prostitution legitimized as a medical service) providers in Japan. The National Environmental Directory Database listed by Envirosource points to a dead web page at the University of Michigan. The Madison Public Library links to a North American Association for Environmental Education web page which allows searches of the National Environmental Directory, but searching the database also points to a dead link. Elsewhere the NAAEE simply links to the Japanese prostitution website. The directory and prostitution website are listed in a dozen or so books, but only incidentally, among lists of other websites, and are singled out in a couple peer-reviewed journal articles (here and here). The EPA lists a "National Environmental Directory of Minority and Women-owned Businesses", but it's not clear that it has any relation to this directory. ––Agyle (talk) 18:06, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:49, 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 keep (WP:SNOW). The nomination has been countered in the discussion below. Furthermore, the nomination appears to be based upon the sourcing within the article, rather than the overall availability of sources about the topic (see WP:NRVE). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrency (road)

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

All of the sources in this article are either:

a.) roadgeek fansites

b.) DOT listings or road maps that prove only that the concurrencies exist

c.) tagged otherwise as unreliable

Nowhere could I find anything that discusses the actual term as an encyclopedic topic. This is just original research plain and simple. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AfD isn't cleanup, and contrary to the nomination, this concept (under this or other names) does exist. The nominator cannot dispute that the concept that a single section of roadway bearing two or more highway numbers is not a common occurrence. Imzadi 1979 → 07:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A point to rebut a flawed part of the above analysis of the sources: a and c are the same category. The two footnotes tagged as unreliable are the two self-published roadgeek sites being cited. As to part b, there is a news article present. In addition to that, I offer:
  - [77], a page from the makers of ArcGIS cartography software that defines the concept under the term "overlap" and how it applies to a cartographic workflow.
  - The Wisconsin DOT uses "concurrent" on a trivia page about their state trunk highway system and in a project study related to I-41 in the state.
  - The Texas DOT uses the same term to describe overlapping highway routings.
  - A travel guide website uses the term.
  - ArcGIS also uses "concurrency" in its user help forums.
  This shows the term is in use in several contexts, sufficient to warrant notability. Again, WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Imzadi1979. --Rs chen 7754 07:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Roadgeek sites may be unreliable as self-published sources, but they are verifiable, numerous, and global. The article certainly is miles away from anything great, but it discusses a genuine topic that is well-covered. In addition, over 4000 pages (I really wish it was 9000) link to this topic. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979:, @Floydian: Then where are the reliable sources hmm? Can't have an article without good sources. And I ain't seeing them. If there are good sources, prove it. Don't just say "it's notable because it exists in a lot of places and has a lot of inbound links". Well no shit, it has a lot of links — every highway on Wikipedia has a page. It exists. But where is the encyclopedic discussion on it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the nom is challenging that the concept exists. The nominator makes a valid point. When you examine the sources, the first one uses the term "coincident" and the second uses the term "common section." None of the sources use the word "concurrent" or "concurrency." Doing a quick Google search turns up nothing which supports that the term "concurrency" is not a coloquialism. I'm inclined to support deletion. However, this may be an acceptable time to ignore all rules. I believe this article is a good change by common sense, and it improves the encyclopedia. --hmich176 09:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See above, my reply here is handled by a refutation of a misleading portion of the nomination statement. Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate your effort to pull in more sources, @Imzadi1979:. --hmich176 10:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article covers an important road topic. All of the above USRD editors have good points as to why it should be kept. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Imzadi1979. Appropriate source material exists. The article is not "original research plain and simple." --hmich176 10:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest you read WP:NEGLECT TenPoundHammer especially "A variation of this is a WP:POINT: an editor wants an article improved but lacks the time or skills to actually improve it, so the article is nominated for deletion in the hope that another editor will take notice and improve the article during its pending deletion period and before the artificial deadline of the deletion process." --Admr Boltz 13:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sources exist, and while the current sources are not suitable for the article, others can be found. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. T C N7JM 15:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. I'll add that any reasonable person would concede this article is full of fancruft, excessive examples and sadly probably always will be. It's just one of those topics that every roadgeek feels compelled to add, "ohh you forgot there's one in MY hometown, let me add it in bold type in the lead". However, the criteria for deletion should be notability. Nobody would argue that U.S. Route 66 should be deleted because that article is similarly full of fancruft, barely relevant random fact insertions and pop culture irrelevance. Dave (talk) 17:18, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted per G3 & G5 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agrippina, Countess von Zarnekau

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

Procedural nomination: this article is tagged as a hoax and I've been unable to establish that the listed references verify the article's content. I've started sorting through ProQuest trying to locate the article's references. I've been able to locate one so far ("Militant Princess without a Country," Washington Post) and it doesn't mention the existence of the article's subject. The article contains two openly accessible references, both in Georgian; one of the refs is unreliable as it's hosted on a site that accepts user submissions([78]). See also a factual error pointed out on the talk page. The article's primary contributor is indefblocked sockpuppet Permaveli (talk · contribs). A lot of red flags here. Muchness (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tagged it with a hoax speedy, as I can't find any reliable sources that show that this person actually exists. A search for her name brings up nothing. The article shows sources, but I can't actually find where these sources mention her. All of what I am finding seems to stem from this Wikipedia article. I'm also a little leery of the photographs since some of them look like they're different people. I'll put a notice in on Wikimedia Commons that they'll likely want to delete the photos since this seems to be a very blatant hoax, so the photos aren't representing the right person(s). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Duke Constantine Petrovich of Oldenburg was certainly married to this woman. If you browse the Google Books for "Oldenburg" and "Zarnekau", some 19th-century references will pop up. Their kids are listed here. Her purported involvement in the marriage of Grand Duke George Alexandrovich of Russia is a hoax, however, because the tsesarevich never married. (He knew that he was mortally ill and tried to limit his contacts with women). Much of the article needs to be checked against sources. Unreliable stuff should be excised. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for confirming her existence. I've also found an obituary of Duke Constantine Petrovich of Oldenburg that mentions her: Marquise De Fontenoy. "Kings Servants of the Poor To-Day". The Washington Post. 12 Apr 1906: 6. She is mentioned at thepeerage.com here. Perhaps the article should be provisionally redirected to Duke Constantine Petrovich of Oldenburg while interested parties work on establishing her notability and verifying all of the article's content? --Muchness (talk) 09:42, 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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 12:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan Sai

AfDs for this article:

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

Since there was no consensus last time, nominating again. Most references refer to him to "Asaram's son". His father is famous, his notability is questionable. IMO WP:GNG is not satisfied. '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail' is violated. News reports (which feature on 7th or 8th pages on newspapers) covering controversy about Asaram's son, is really not significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports WP:NOTNEWS. Except this father's cult websites, its biography or works are not covered anywhere Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated 6 weeks ago. And 3 months before that. Can we give it a rest, please? There will be no difference after 6 weeks. -- GreenC 06:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the record, as a few weeks ago. -- GreenC 05:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search shows extensive coverage in many reliable sources in India. Coverage of notable offspring of notable people will often mention their parents. But when the sources go on to give significant coverage to the offspring, that makes those people independently notable. That's the case here. Also, sources on page 7 or 8 are perfectly fine for establishing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS doesn't establish Wikipedia content.Lihaas (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:STICK in regards to recent discussion, quote: "If the debate died a natural death – let it remain dead. It is over, let it go. Nobody cares anymore. Hard to stomach, but you're going to have to live with it." Roberticus (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bands and musicians? Hehehe.... I will let it stay. Maybe people will find him notable as singer of bhajans. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AfD being closed No consensus is not an excuse to AfD it again two weeks later. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect to father. he is no more independently notable now than he was then. WP:BLPCRIME / WP:BLP1E. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as per TRPoD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Asaram Bapu - my views are same as at were at time of previous nomination. Jethwarp (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added 2 more sources to the article which in their title refer to him solely & directly, and indicate that his issues continue to elicit independent & reliable coverage on their own merits: Narayan Sai confessed to rape: Cops Bribe conspiracy: Narayan Sai subjected to voice spectrography test Though his father is consistently mentioned within the articles, most of titles listed here mention only the son, which to me evidences an independent notability in his own right. Roberticus (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge should be an effective compromise. Wouldn't support deleting as he seems to be notable in a multitude of sources. Though that ofcourse doesn't mean he automatically gets his own page. Or maybe his political party page could be the target article.Lihaas (talk) 15:33, 9 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) 22:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poudar

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

I've been following changes on this page since 21 December, but I'm still not 100% sure what the topic is supposed to be. It is apparently a group of people, perhaps from Nepal with diaspora in the Americas and Europe, but some versions of the page assert, "They are thickly populated in international countries with surname Paudarco" (from the 20 December 2013 version of the page). Prior to 20 December, the name was a redirect to Paudel, which is an article about a surname. Some edits to the page suggest that the topic is the name itself, not an ethnic group or community.

The main editor of the page (somewhat confusingly, he has used two different names, User:Naver.np and User:Manzilnfl) has made what are clearly good-faith attempts to improve the page. Unfortunately, they have not improved it much at all.

One further confusing issue: Pau d'arco is the name of several places in Brazil and is a common name for two plant ~~species~~ genera, one of which is touted as a health supplement. Web searches for that name turn up many results (some of which have been cited as references on this article at various times), but none, as far as I can see, is relevant to the Poudar people or the Paudel/Poudar name. Cnilep (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the course of trying to notify previous editors about this discussion, I discovered at Paudarco manzil, Paudarco Manzil, Manzil Paudarco, and MANZIL PAUDARCO were all speedy deleted as either "no context" or "no assertion of notability". I don't know if that has any bearing on this article. Cnilep (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article has no relevant sources, it is very unclear, a web search for the terms turn up nothing relevant. SchreiberBike talk 08:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per SchreiberBike. It seems almost to be a coatrack thing, assembling a variety of poor sources that contain a variety of names of vague similarity. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 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. Feel free to contact me if his circumstances change. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Toby

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that he will play for Orlando City SC, which is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Can always restore if he plays. Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original PRODder; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominating editor has misrepresented the grounds for removing the prod. It wasn't because he will play, but because there's little point wasting time and resources deleting an article, that most likely will be validly recreated when the season starts in a few weeks. However, if y'all really want to waste everyone's time, it's a valid deletion ... but I once again fail to see some want so desperately to play WP:WHACAMOLE rather than showing some patience and WP:COMMONSENSE and simply waiting a few weeks to see what happens. I fail to see the harm in an aritlce does appearing a few weeks prematurely. Nfitz (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The article can be restored at the click of a button when subject becomes notable, but at the moment he is not. JMHamo (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't restore at a click of a button. And why waste everyone's time with what is most likely a temporary deletion? Can just as easily argue that it can be deleted with a click of a button if he isn't even riding the bench in a few weeks. Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can use WP:DRV when he's notable. JMHamo (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the last time I went to WP:DRV after a player whose article had been deleted had made a first-team start, there were complaints that wasn't an appropriate thing for WP:DRV. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: - by that logic we should have an article on all FPL academy players on the grounds that they will probably play at some point in the next few years. Your second point makes no sense as you are basically saying "he's not notable now, but let's keep the article for a while to see if he continues not to be notable". Surely you understand that that is the exact opposite of what GNG requires?!? Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: You have completely failed to comprehend, and are misrepresenting my position. I have not said articles should be created for Academy players. This isn't an Academy player, this is a player who would be expected to be in the first team. I'm simply saying that there's no point wasting everyone's time by playing WP:WHACAMOLE for an article that will most likely be legitimately recreated within weeks when the season starts. To try and delete this article shows a complete lack of WP:COMMONSENSE, patience, and maturity. But go ahead anyway ... it's the complete waste of everyone's time I fail to comprehend. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and the information contained within needs to be 100% accurate, especially for BLP articles. We do not make assumptions about the future. JMHamo (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does need to be 100% accurate. What's not accurate in the article? It says he plays for Orlando City. So does Orlando City's website [79]. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails notability guidelines. Plus Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. – Michael (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with media articles about him. [80] [81] [82]. There's more routine stuff over the years, documenting his history, but wouldn't establish GNG ... [83] [84][85]. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nfitz, you seem to have a real difficulty understanding GNG. A report from a club signing him (not secondary) and two other reports from one source (not multiple) do not meet a guideline which specifically states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" (original wording, bolding mine). WP:ROUTINE coverage is not a criteria for inclusion of material, so please don't bring it into these various discussions. GNG is not met here, so delete. C 679 13:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cloudz679. - Turtlepump (talk) 16:09, 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) 21:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Edgardo Contreras

(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 Salvadoran top flight it fully pro, an assertion not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient coverage to pass GNG. No indication EL Salvadorean lague is fully pro even though the club he plays for might be. Fenix down (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence this player meets notability guidelines. C 679 13:06, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Afghanistan, Muscat

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

embassies are not inherently notable. there is no indication this one meets WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:18, 30 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) 12:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing seemingly notable about the building itself or the institution. Embassies are not inherently notable - they must meet WP:GNG and this one doesn't as far as I can see. Stalwart111 12:21, 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya Society for Intercultural Dialogue

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

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

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

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

No third neutral references to prove its notability. Only third party references are obscure news pieces that talk about a FIR of fraud in October been filled against the organization in the local Varanasi papers. This article created in November reads like a PR activity to promote the organization, all based on their own websites and blogs. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No third neutral references to prove its notability"

I disagree that there is no third neutral reference. Although there is indeed an over-abundance of references to the Society web site and Society managed blogs I would not say that there are op third neutral references. Most of this links have an active hyperlink to these independent sources, so they can be verified independently. I counted 31 such references , viz. See External references- Wikipedia page. Kautilya.

Articles 19(1)(c) and 30 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961, Public Trusts Acts of various states, Societies Registration Act, 1860, Section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976.
TVP channel, Youtube
Arthashastra, Penguin.
Filocafè, Trip Advisor.
Cape Town Declaration, Responsible tourism partnership.
Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys, Routledge.
Heritage Resources if Varanasi, Indian Heritage Cities Network.
Banaras, the City Revealed, Marg Publications on behalf of the National Centre for the Performing Arts.
Proposing Varanasi for the World Heritage List of UNESCO, Varanasi Development Authority
Singh, Rana P.B., Vrinda Dar and S. Pravin, Rationales for including Varanasi as heritage city in the UNESCO World Heritage List, National Geographic Journal of India (Varanasi) 2001, 47:177-200
The Varanasi Heritage Dossier, Wikiversity
Varanasi Heritage Zone, Varanasi Development Authority.
You can place Kashi on Unesco world heritage list, The Times of India.
Unplanned construction destroying riverfront majesty, The Times of India.
थाती पर मंडराता खतरा, India Today.
Ganga continues to be exploited, The Times of India.
K. G. BalaKrishnan, Chief Justice of India (8th Oct. 2008). "Growth of Public Interest Litigation in India". Supreme Court of India.
Adv. Mihir Deasi and Adv. Kamayani Bali Mahabal (ed.). "Introduction to Public Interest Litigation". Introduction to Public Interest Litigation, in Health Care Case Law in India – A Reader by CEHAT and ICHRL. Retrieved 2012-04-26.
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005, Gvt. of India.
Allahabad High Court Order Dated 26 May 2006, Allahabad High Court.
PIL 31229 of 2005 - 14 March 2013, Allahabad High Court Judgment.
Allahabad High Court Order of 9 October 2013, Allahabad High Court.
Allahabad High Court Order Dated 29 July 2013, Allahabad High Court.
हाईकोर्ट ने सरकार से वाराणसी के घाटों के सौंदर्यीकरण का प्रस्ताव मांगा, नवभारत टाइम्स
एनजीओ के खिलाफ निकाला जुलूस, जागरण.
कौटिल्य सोसायटी के सदस्यों की गिरफ्तारी न होने से क्षुब्ध शिवसैनिकों ने जुलूस निकाला, Gandiv Hindi Daily.
धर्म नगरी में विदेशियों को हुक्का, काशी में उबाल, LiveVns.com.
NGO runs hookah bar, cops pull down smokescreen, Deccan Herals.
Facebook expose: 'Hookah bar' run by NGO in garb of cultural activity, Daily Bhaskar.
Social organization booked for running 'hukka bar'; 9 arrested, IBN live.

--Rahulkepapa (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All high-quality references like Routledge, Times of India, UNESCO DO NOT mention the organization at all, but reference sentences about Varanasi, the city. Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court keeps a record of each PIL and court case, that does not establish notability. "NGO runs hookah bar, cops pull down smokescreen, Deccan Herald" is the coverage the organization has really got in the Varanasi editions of newspapers. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Obscure news pieces that talk about a FIR of fraud in October been filled against the organization in the local Varanasi papers. This article created in November reads like a PR activity to promote the organization, all based on their own websites and blogs."

The article mentioned by the editor who proposes the deletion of the Kautilya Society page is: Litigation for Varanasi Heritage intensifies published in ⇒ Wikinews on Sunday, November 17, 2013. It is not about a fraud case but about a Public Interest Litigation. Wikinews editors are actively engaged in revisions to make sure that its articles are of good quality and it is unlikely that any PR activity over there will get passed by the editors. In the case of this article you can see the writing and revision process in n:Talk:Litigation for Varanasi Heritage intensifies and the final "pass" given there by Bddpaux. --Rahulkepapa (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahulkepapa forgot to mention that Wikinews article is written by him. Wikipedia and other sister projects are not contributedWP:RS. The PIL has hardly any coverage, it is the hookah bar (under the organization is accused of fraud) that have news coverage. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not true that the PIL has not coverage in the Indian and specifically the Varanasi press. The fact that rahulkepapa was the main contributor to this article does not imply that he has no authority to comment about it. His point are valid that the article went under intense scrutiny and only after such scrutiny it was passed. I feel that Redtigerxyz is taking the issue too personally. The PIL for heritage for the heritage in Varanasi has a lot of significance for the city and beyond and more debate and partecipation is needed. Kautilya Society is a well known NGO in the city and more people will take part to the debate. Keep the article under scrutiny but please do not delete it as this will not give the opportunity for more additions and corrections. --Abufausto (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Abufausto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment The objection is raised that "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." I agree that it seems that the major contributor to this articles seems to know the matter first hand. However it does not appear to me that there is evidence of a conflict of interests. as defined by the Wikipedia policies as a case "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". In fact there is ample spaces given also to the argumentation of those who oppose the Society. (Redtigerxyz only refers to those articles!) This reveals that the contributor has not been partial although he may still have personal inclinations that he was not sufficiently able to clean up. But he tried to be "objective" and refer favorable and unfavorable augmentations bring about the Society. Heritage protection in Varanasi is a hot issue and requesting "deletion" before requesting "additional sources required" is excessive. More time is needed to be given for improvements and corrections that can modify the initial contributions and bring it more in line with Wikipedia requirements. --Abufausto (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your second "Keep". You may only !vote once. Further comments should be preceeded by Comment. Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Redtigerxyz noticed, the article did in fact contain an inadequate number of citations. As Abufausto suggested, other Wikipedia editors would need to contribute to the article by inserting more citations. I will work on and add more citations and references from the Indian media that cover the main activities of the Kautilya Society on heritage protection and the Public Interest Litigation. Please keep the article and allow more time to do such a revision.Vrindadar (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Vrindadar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I have a copy of the book cited in the references - Banaras, the City Revealed, Marg Publications on behalf of the National Centre for the Performing Arts. - and Kautilya Society activities for heritage protection are described at page 77 and 78. Kautilya Society work for the heritage protection is also specifically mentioned in the following article quoted in the references: You can place Kashi on Unesco world heritage list, The Times of India. Fleshandbones00 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Fleshandbones00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". Fighting a PIL for heritage protection is, in the Indian context, surely an important issue and information about a society doing this work deserves a place in the Wikipedia. In spite of the cultural importance of Varanasi, local stakeholders here may not have full knowledge of Wikipedia standards and rules but they should be given adequate time to contribute and improve the articles. Some citations may be in excess but at least few independent sources surely prove the article's notability. Redtigerxyz is excessive while saying that "NGO runs hookah bar, cops pull down smokescreen, Deccan Herald" is the coverage the organization has really got in the Varanasi editions of newspapers"--Gaurigrazia (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Gaurigrazia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would suggest keeping this wikipedia page and not deleting it. The page has a substantial number of references, a larger number than many Wikipedia pages that are currently not contested. I also don't understand the rational brought for by User:Redtigerxyz for deleting the page. It surely needs improvement but deleting the page does not do justice to either the organization nor its critics. Like most pages of organization on Wikipedia, there should be a section of in the page called "Controversies" where information gathered by User:Redtigerxyz can be inserted. I believe it is important that global media channels like Wikipedia give space to small non-government organizations and allow them to disseminate information of their projects on Wikipedia. In the Kautilya Society page one can see a lot of effort in drafting an informative page of high quality and this kind of participation should be promoted. Information for this page is surely taken from the page and blog of the Kautilya Society, but this is their official website and as such a reliable source of information. New-media articles and academic journals are not the only source of reliable information.

There is substantial information online showing the existence of Kautilya Socity, from news articles to tripadvisor and facebook to make it notable and subsequently eligible for a page on Wikipedia.

A last point, from my knowledge the society by googling it, it seems to be called "Kautilya Society" and not "Kautilya Society for intercultural dialogue" and would subsequently suggest changing the page name.Faustoaarya (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC) — Faustoaarya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~You have already opined "Keep" above. Please stop bolding the word in further comments.~~ Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have confused you with User:Abufausto above, whose name is quite similar to yours. Voceditenore (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has nobody noticed how promotional this is? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note left on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FKautilya_Society_for_Intercultural_Dialogue about participation of "new" users. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGO. Only independent, third-party RS (Times of India) is a few passing references. Miniapolis 00:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The attempts at padding this article with "references" from their own websites, blogs, and YouTube videos; self-published material on Wikiversity, WikiBooks, WikiTravel, and WikiNews; multiple user-generated reviews in sites like TripAdvisor, etc.; primary source court documents; and extensive waffle about general environmental issues and Hindu philosophy cannot mask the fact that the subject comprehensively fails WP:NGO. The society brought a law-suit against some local hotels for illegal building works. Their targets brought counter-charges of them running a hotel for hookah-smoking tourists under the guise of an NGO. End of discussion. This organisation/hotel has received only passing mention in major news sources. There is absolutely no significant in-depth coverage in truly independent reliable sources of the society itself—its history, its impact, its activities (apart from running a hotel for hookah-smoking tourists and bringing a law suit). Even the interview with its founder has only one question about the society and brief answer at the very end of the interview ([86], p. 20). This article is also so promotional and full of soapboxing for their cause, that one could additionally argue for deletion via WP:BLOWITUP. It would need a fundamental re-write from zero to bring it anywhere near the semblance of an encyclopedia article. Even then, there would be no independent publications to source any assertions about the society, apart from the fact they brought a lawsuit against some local hotels and had some non-notable charges brought against themselves.
The COI here is blatantly obvious. The "Keep" !votes are all coming from the article's creator (who also wrote the WikiVersity, WikiBooks, and WikiNews pages and made the multiple videos which are linked from the article) and several other single-purpose accounts (at least one of which appears to have been created for the purpose of participating in this AfD, two of which have remarkably similar names, and another who has the same name as the Society's secretary quoted in the article and speaking in the videos). Note also their blatant advertising links on Commons [87]. Although COI in itself is not reason for deletion if an article is fixable (which this one clearly isn't), the commentary by these editors in the AfD discussion needs to be seen in that light. Voceditenore (talk) 08:38, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional Rehabilitation Center, Nepal

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

an extremely worthy but extremely small project ,of no encyclopedic significance. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:15, 30 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) 12:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:19, 11 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Spano

AfDs for this article:

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

president of a very unimportant company, with the sources being a combination of mere notices, non-idenpendent sources, and press releases. Accepted at AfC, which by now is not surprising for this sort of article. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:14, 30 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) 12:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep per abundant coverage in reliable independent sources. How old was she when she started the company? Is there a source for her age? The is a lot of coverage going back to the late 80s. So that would make her very young if the age in the article is correct. Also, when did she go from Lynette Spano Vives to lynette Spano? at any rate, this isn't a close call. Definitely notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These types of bios are always tricky, since they are usually self-serving and frequently the result of pay-for-play editing. That said the combination of the importance of the company and the fact that this is the founder of a public charity, as covered in multiple sources, tips this one into the Keep camp. Carrite (talk) 19:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Writing: On the Culture of Letters in South Africa

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

the author is a Nobelist, and any substantial work of his is notable. Even some or many individual essays might be. I do not think we should necessarily extend it to collections of essays, unless they've been as a collection the subject of critical comment that discusses the collection as such. I think that's going to be very rare, tho it can happen. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:13, 30 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) 13:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We know the author and his work are notable. So the real question is whether this should be covered in a stand-alone article or merged into a broader article on the author's work. So Keep and determine whether merging or leaving it independent is a better choice. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the fact that it's by Coetzee might possibly mean that this meets criteria #5 of WP:BK. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:51, 18 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's 3 reviews[88][89][90]. It also seems to be mentioned in several other essays/papers on Coetzee. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Nikko Palau

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

fails WP:ORG. simply being an old hotel is not a claim for notability. the only coverage I could find is in hotel and tourist listings. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite a few google book results, including mentions like "Until the Palau Pacific Resort went up in 1984, Palau's top hotel was the Hotel Nikko Palau" ([91]) and " Palau Continental Hotel, Palau's best tourist hotel." ([92]). The hotel was previously known as 'Palau Continental Hotel'. There is more details that could easily be added, like how it was set up by Japan Airlines and about the workers strike in the 1970s (which came to involve 2 US congressmen). --Soman (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soman above. 0x0077BE (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 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) 04:50, 30 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) 13:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Sufficiently notable hotel, as shown by the references. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:14, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Leader Research (company)

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

Advertising. Notable. Awards are usual sort they all have. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:42, 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) 04:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. unreferenced for years and I can only found coverage that confirms existence. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 3 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) 13:01, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cirkle

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

Advertising. Not notable. Awards are niche industry ones they all have. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 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) 04:49, 30 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) 13:01, 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 no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Roach Underground

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

This seems a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. While the guy who ran this seems somewhat notable and his group certainly is, I wasn't able to find WP:GNG-type coverage for this particular endeavor of theirs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 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) 04:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Organization of the cDc material probably could be improved but that's not something we should take on here. ~KvnG 18:10, 8 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) 13:02, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Johnson (actress)

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

Does not demonstrate notbility. She has modeled for 2 photographers and stared in short film/advert for 1 of those photographers. Article created by user Katiejhnsn, which appears to be the subject of the article herself. Article doesn't appear to have ever had 'New unreviewed article' or similar template. Lopifalko (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On notability, I currently have no opinion. ¶ I'm not aware that it's necessary to add Template:New unreviewed article to a new, unreviewed article. I've created a fair number of articles but have never added it, and indeed have only rarely seen it used by others. ¶ Even if the article was/is autobiographical, autobiography is not among the reasons for deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Template:New unreviewed article, sorry, my mistake, I thought all new articles had to begin with a 'This page is a new unreviewed article....' status. Perhaps I'm confusing my templates. -Lopifalko (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 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) 04:46, 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 redirect to Scrambled Eggs (cartoon). Redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkin

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

No indication of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 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) 04:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, unclear how it would ever reach notability. Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 7 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) 13:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot see that there is anything here that cannot be contained in articles about creator.TheLongTone (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scrambled Eggs (cartoon): we have an article on the cartoon which is more than sufficient. (I just wikilinked it from Peterkin, to make it more obvious.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:14, 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 delete under wp:g11 -- Y not? 16:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Efuneral

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

Wikipedia:Notability - This appears to largely be a self promotional and SEO attempt by the article subject Chatterboxer (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 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) 04:44, 30 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) 13:05, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Escalona

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

Promotional autobiography for non-notable woman. damiens.rf 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:17, 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) 04:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article are not independent, and I was unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Just passing mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 30 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) 13:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. There are some assertions that she's won awards which might push her towards notability, but it's impossible to know how prestigious or exclusive they are, and there are no citations to back it up in any case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:46, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelia Bou Ledesma

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

It seems the only notable thing about this lady is that she is married to a former governor of Puerto Rico. damiens.rf 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 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) 04:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has not established notability about the topic other than that she is the wife of someone famous. Folgertat (talk) 14:38, 7 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) 13:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability other than as somebody notable's wife.TheLongTone (talk) 17:43, 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. slakr^\ talk / 14:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Munshi Habib ur Rehman Kapurthalwi

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

No verifiable indications that this person meets the criteria for inclusion. Although claimed as a "chieftain" of Kapurhala State, there is no independent verification that he held any significant post in that government, and his role as an early adherent of the Ahmadiyya movement, while possibly notable within that movement, is not generally notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the kind of AfD discussion where one is always worried that one is missing something. I'm fairly sure that we quite often delete articles on notable Indian Muslims from a hundred years or so ago - but the difficulty, as in this case, is knowing what to look for to distinguish the notable from the non-notable ones, particularly as there are often a number of ways of transcribing Urdu (and other Indian) names or deciding which parts of a name are important. For instance, in this article, the nominator marked two references as failing verification. In both cases, I am almost entirely convinced that he was wrong to do so - but as, in one case, the subject's name is given as Hadhrat Munshi Habib ar-Rahman and, in the other, as Munshi Muhammad Habibur Rahman, Chieftain, Kapurthala, I can suggest no more than that he was insufficiently ingenious (and probably not to the point where it matters, as in both cases, this was just one name in a list). And, while I would point out that Kapurthalwi doesn't seem to have been an integral part of the subject's name (it just seems to mean from Kapurthala) and neither, probably, is Munshi, removing these before doing a search simply leaves one with far too many false positives (even before one allows for the different ways to spell or even divide up what is left of the name). And, if there are significant reliable sources, chances are that they are in Urdu anyway (and, by the way, I suspect that the description of the subject as "chieftain" is a mistranslation from Urdu - but I've no idea of what the correct translation would be). PWilkinson (talk) 22:16, 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) 04:44, 30 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) 13:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I point out that, based on this user talk page, this article was created and recreated multiple times in 2010, and speedily deleted several times. (Although, clearly at least one deletion was improper as it was deleted as an unsourced BLP, but clearly, this person has been dead for over 80 years. However, also because this person has been dead for over 80 years, it is unlikely that their notability has changed any since 2010. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I agree almost entirely with User:PWilkinson, but that still unfortunately leaves us with an article that we can't verify. I'd rather delete this article with the proviso that it can be recreated if someone with good sources in Urdu (or another language) shows up, than run the risk of allowing a potentially inaccurate or hoaxy article to continue its existence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:44, 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 no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DIT Students' Union

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

Non notable students union. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Almost all content unreferenced and no independent reliable sources Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have thought that the students unions of all the major Irish universities and higher level institutions are notable even though this is sparsely referenced. It should be possible to rescue this one. ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 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) 04:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage. Advise them to add a history page to http://www.ditsu.ie/ --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 6 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) 13:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Doesn't seem to be a notable students union. Only reference[93] is not independent of the subject.Iniciativass (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DIT SU is the first Student Union in Ireland that has a corporate identify. It is a <ref=http://www.ditsu.ie/union/who-we-are/company-info/>registered company</ref> DITSU Ltd Co. Number 109412. DITSU Ltd also owns a subsidiary trading company, DITSU Trading Ltd. The student membership of DITSU is the highest in the country when part-time students are taken into account. It is completely independent from the bureaucracy of DIT and for those reasons should not be closed/deleted and folded into the DIT wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomaonaigh (talk • contribs) 14:27, 12 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 Celebrity_Big_Brother_13#Casey_Batchelor. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Batchelor

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

This is a recently created page of a non notable contestant on Celebrity Big Brother currently on British TV. The refs supplied are weak re-iterations of her appearance on the show, her day job appears to be as a topless model. There has already been a deletion of another contestant on the same show HERE . Szzuk (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 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) 04:43, 30 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) 13:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 13. Insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources for stand-alone article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:58, 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 Circle of Magic. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Vedris IV

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

Not a significant enough subject to have a stand-alone article. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:12, 30 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, Ged UK 12:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Circle of Magic There's a list of characters already which doesn't mention the duke, and there's barely more material here than there is for each of the others. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathi Cozzone

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

This bio is of a local politician, the sources discussing Cozzone are local which is not significant coverage as defined in the notability guidelines. One national reach publication, Roll Call, only gives fleeting mention (again not significant coverage). ColonelHenry (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that significant coverage requires non-local sources? Thanks, Orser67 (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability guidelines is WP:POLITICIAN, and IMHO, Cozzone is not a major local politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. I worked for a local paper 15 years ago, they're rather pathetic and needy to fill the page...The Unionville Times piece[94] was likely a press release from Cozzone at the beginning of campaign season. Likely self-published press release and the paper ran with it almost verbatim. The Phoenixville piece [95] is about her being one candidate in the election. A 300-word brief, she figures in about 40% of the article. Not a big deal. The Berksmont piece [96] is 250-word brief about the reorganization of the board...o.k. so what, she's vice chair in a commission's typical annual round-robin selection for a rather useless formality of a post...that's all it says. I can take a piss longer than it takes to read that article. A handful of dubious local news pieces with superficial coverage doesn't make her notable. Per WP:RS - less-established news outlets are generally considered less reliable. further, being reported on in a local paper isn't "significant coverage" independent of the person. Most local papers write articles on short-term interest stories, and largely from press releases by whoever wants a little publicity. these are small-time papers, and less reliable than a big market outfit. per WP:NTEMP, WP:BLP1E "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." When she makes it to real newspapers with significant coverage (not some passing b.s.), or finds her way into a book, then she might be notable enough for an article. Right now, the local police blotter is likely more interesting than some article about her county commission meetings.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but it seems to be just that, opinion. I don't believe that this deletion is based on Wikipedia guidelines, but rather your own opinion about what is notable.

Sorry dude, belitting my reasonable assessment of this insignificant local politician won't convince me of this person's notability. And I'm usually very inclusive--she doesn't pass muster.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has numerous sources covering her, and holds a powerful position in an important position in a well-populated (500,000k) and politically important county. Orser67 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... non-notable local politician. ColonelHenry nails it on the head. Onel5969 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local politician and a delete is a usual outcome per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Enos733 (talk) 17:38, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wandera

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

Even the FT article is just a press release -- n oactual accomplishments DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:12, 30 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, Ged UK 12:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 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) 00:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split My Taxi

AfDs for this article:

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

seems to be limited to the Boston University Campus. Despite the published article based probably on local interest and their press releases, not notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:11, 30 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, Ged UK 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small local company. It was mentioned in the Boston Globe but still I am really questioning the notability. I must add its a nice idea behind the company. Let it grow abit. Let it add more towns and it will get notability. Untill then I vote delete.Stepojevac (talk) 17:07, 16 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. Ged UK 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irwin Linker

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

This person does not appear to be notable and I cannot find any other references to him. Due to the multiple issues with the article, I proposed it is deleted. FirstDrop87 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG miserably. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dealply

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

Prod was disputed. No non-trivial third party RS to support WP:CORP notability. This source (a non-notable marketing site) devotes about a sentence to Dealply. This source only mentions Dealply's parent company, devoting a paragraph to it. This one appears to be a press release, and the remaining ones simply ID Dealply as having been picked up by anti-malware software. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disclosure: I am the article's creator. Replaced press release with a reliable source and updated information based on source change. Fact remains that with millions of users, the company is a notable one. Continuing to find and addmore reliable sources regarding notability. Article does not warrant deletion. Ymd2004 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link you added is just a "success story" from another non-notable company that sold something to Dealply. That hardly qualifies under WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a notable topic, but the topic here is privacy-invasive browser toolbars, not Dealply specifically. I'd welcome a broad article on such, but this product is a footnote or section, not an article. No objection to userfying it as a starting point for such a broadened article though. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, Andy; alternatively, that topic could easily be expanded in Browser toolbar. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather keep browser toolbar for those (good or bad) that are literally toolbars in browsers. The privacy-invasive aspect is independently notable and it can apply to many things other than toolbars: from Comet Cursor to Angry Birds. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 31 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, Ged UK 12:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a lot of internet discussion about how to remove this software but I'm unable to find any reliable sources. ~KvnG 17:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources provided are incidental mentions, not RS, or are associated with the company. A search did not turn up any significant RS references.Dialectric (talk) 12:41, 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 delete. Ged UK 12:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low Income Resources

AfDs for this article:

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

As per What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a directory — of services or anything else. As per long standing consensus, such pages do not belong here. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 01:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. Safiel (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete as per nom. I PRODed this, but the prod was declined, with no reason stated. DES ^(talk) 01:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment btw, my decline of prod was procedural, I was actually trying to open an AfD, but you beat me to it. Safiel (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not allow the prod to stand and see if it held, and avoid the need for this discussion? DES ^(talk) 01:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was wondering why you declined a straight forward nomination (and the question by DES above). Anyway, thanks for informing me. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 01:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I do admire that someone cared enough to compile this list, I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for this. We're not a soapbox or place to promote anything, regardless of how noble or good the intentions are. I am a bit concerned that there are multiple people uploading this list onto various accounts, as I deleted a similar list at User:AACI's Low Income Resource as a promotional userpage. I'm going to open up an SPI, as I'm concerned that there might be a network of people spamming for the various LIR locations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do have to say that I personally view this as promotional in tone, as the wording in several sections of the article is blatantly promotional for the companies plus the nature of the list is to promote people using the services. (See phrases such as "Therefore, Hospice of the Valley ensures all families receive expert, quality, compassionate care and support, regardless of ability to pay." ) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry about the prod decline yesterday. I have recently dealt with some malformed AfD nominations and mistakenly thought that this was one. Safiel (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well intentioned but not appropriate per nominator. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:45, 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. Ged UK 12:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Quiles

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

Notability concerns. I don't believe this individual passes WP:BIO or WP:MILNG. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 00:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Other than being an Army recipient of the Bronze Star, I'm not sure what makes this junior officer particularly significant or important. —C.Fred (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPEOPLE. ///EuroCarGT 01:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So is my page going to be deleted? Will my name stay on the Bronze Star page? Edwin Quiles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.52.67 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quiles is not listed at the Bronze Star page, nor do I show where he has been at any time since this article was created. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly referring to the Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal. And no, it won't stay. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer with absolutely no notability whatsoever. Why on earth do people think it's acceptable to keep on creating these articles? It's rather sad that people in relatively responsible positions continue to apparently believe that Wikipedia exists as a place to display their CVs. It's an encyclopaedia, for crying out loud, not a networking or self-glorification site! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:07, 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. There is consensus that the artices in the current state do not demonstrate ntability of the individuals involved and have to be deleted. The persons may very well be notable, and the articles can be recreated provided they satisfy the notability criteria.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Isak

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

These individuals do not appear to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Also included in this nomination:

(Please feel free to add any similar articles to this nomination, in case I've missed any.) ‑Scottywong | babble _ 00:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full Support: Per nom. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as claim to fame comes from a "curated list" "influential people," which is hardly a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPEOPLE. ///EuroCarGT 01:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Even after looking at Isak's "About me" page, I can't figure out what exactly he does. I couldn't find any reliable sources for any of these people. Fails WP:BIO, and how. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Hyoun Park, I know all of these people. Whether any of us are famous enough to be in Wikipedia is up for debate and I'd be the first to agree that the current stub for my name (which I had no role in creating) is not up to snuff, but the people listed here are all experts in unified communications and enterprise telephony who are hired by enterprise companies and vendors to help with strategy and product development. Although we're famous in our own sphere, Wikipedia doesn't typically list even the most influential of industry analysts, which typically means that people researching enterprise technology topics on Wikipedia cannot find any listed experts on this site. I would actually argue that I'm better known for enterprise mobility as the first to quantify the costs of BYOD as a third-party, for my work with telepresence robots where I advised many of the key players in the market, and my work as a Big Data influencer on social media, but my work in telecom expense management, videoconferencing, and unified communications has also been significant over the last six years since I have about 50 primary published reports in those areas between my work at the Aberdeen Group and Nucleus Research. hyounpark (talk) 5:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:06, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McKayla Matthews

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, just nominations, No independent, reliably sourced content. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak delete - Just realized that WP:PORNBIO excludes "ensemble" awards, which her only win would be. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per OhNoitsJamie. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO as her only award was for Best Sex Scene and PORNBIO states "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". Finnegas (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Fails GNG without substantial reliable source coverage. None found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 1 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. All the delete votes are mere citations of notability guidelines; but since the keep voters have provided evidence that Umar has played in a professional football league that deletion argument no longer applies. I am closing this accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aminu Umar

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. ///EuroCarGT 00:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Keep - Player passes NFOOTY having played at least once in a professional league. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:TFF First League is a fully professional league.

→http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/spor/futbol/23544328.asp

→http://www.fanatik.com.tr/tff-ligleri-tescilledi_3_Detail_88_314854.htm

→http://www.tff.org/Resources/TFF/Documents/0000014/TFF/STATULER/ST3L-Statu.pdf (TFF Third League is also professional)--Lglukgl (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears this article passes both NFOOTBALL (TFF First League is likely fully-pro) and the GNG (I added one detailed article about his signing with Samsunspor in July 2013). Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not establish the notability of this subject. Folgertat (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TFF First League is a fully professional according to sources [97] [98][99][100] so meets WP:GNG Nfitz (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in a fully pro league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for all those voting !delete, please review the 3 references I've added to the article (there are several others online if you search) to see if you really think it fails GNG. I don't think the coverage is routine. Jogurney (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't speak Turkish, so the burden is on you to prove he meets GNG. JMHamo (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the ones in English, they are very short, in my mind not what is required for substantial coverage. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wouldn't have thought the English language articles were "routine" coverage (the online Turkish-language sources are similar - reporting on his signing with Samsunspor and goal-scoring in 1. Lig). Fair enough, but I've seen far, far less pass muster at AfD before. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Aminu Umar has scored one league goal for Wikki Tourists in the Nigeria Premier League the top league of Nigerian football.→http://westafricanfootball.com/2012/05/27/the-nigeria-u-20-national-football-team

Nigeria Premier League is a fully professional league→Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues /--Lglukgl (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you are absolutely correct; Umar played at least once in the WP:FPL because he scored a goal in the league for Wikki Tourists (see this). It just shows how silly NFOOTBALL is, but the people !voting no based on NFOOTBALL probably should explain why they didn't factor in the NPL appearances. Jogurney (talk) 21:58, 10 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comment. Played in a fully professional league so passes WP:NFOOTY. --JamesMoose (talk) 20:03, 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.