Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 April	19 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Academic grading in the Philippines. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Weighted Average

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

The concept of weighted averages is in use across a variety of disciplines. This article relates to a specific discipline in a specific country. It might be more useful if the incoming links are redirected to the general page Weighted mean Peaky76 (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weighted mean, of which it is a derivative of. It's a possible search term, but it's a concept that's only specific to a single country, so an article for it isn't necessary. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not to a country, but most probably specific only to the University of the Philippines system. It's certainly not used in UST. Either redirect to University of the Philippines, or to weighted mean; leaning to the former, as I don't see any evidence that the exact phrase "General Weighted Average" is a predominantly used term to denote "weighted mean". –H T D 13:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way HTD, since I'm going to study in UP starting this June, I need something to be clarified: isn't it the UPG, not the GWA? Or is the UPG only for entrance exams? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPG means "University Predicted Grade". –H T D 03:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Academic grading in the Philippines. I'm not opposed to the other suggestions here, I just think this is the better article to redirect to. Delete is not an unreasonable outcome either. If I came across the phrase "general weighted average" I would assume it is the same as "weighted mean", but the phrase doesn't seem to be commonly used except in the Philippines education system. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, I did a quick view of the meaning of GWA at Google Books and it describes different things aside from Academic grading. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Academic grading in the Philippines, per Dingo1729. Miniapolis 14:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Academic grading in the Philippines per Dingo1729. —me_and 19:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cowboy. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cowboy

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

Article may be a possible Hoax. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 22:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G3: Most definitely a hoax. Before you deleted my nomination to do this discussion, I had already put it up for speedy deletion. I re-added my nomination, since a discussion isn't necessary for this article. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is indeed a hoax, I'll redirect it to Cowboy. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 22:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lodsys#Patents. L Faraone 13:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Abelow

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

Only real source of notability appears to be that he is the patent holder for a company that is famous for patent trolling. Delete in my books. Sasquatch t|c 22:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't delete as he deserves to be on Wikipedia. He has been cited in forbs and his inventions have been licensed more than 200 leading companies that include Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nokia, Verizon, Sony, Netflix much more.--Ceecily (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article at Forbes has exactly this to say: "But maybe this licensing revenue is rewarding a worthy inventor? The inventor of Lodsys’s four patents is a consultant named Dan Abelow with a background in economics. If Abelow has ever produced any useful products or services, that fact isn’t evident from his Lodsys bio and his website." Even Forbes doesn't make it sound like he is notable. There is also no evidence that any of his patents have actually been licensed to the companies you named unless it was to settle a patent troll suit. Sasquatch t|c 23:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. Do you think [1] would help?--Ceecily (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. You haven't proved anything in relation to notability policy. Sasquatch t|c 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lodsys#Patents. There is no significant coverage about Abelow. What mentions he does get is basically that he sold is patents to Lodsys. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect and merge to Sega Saturn. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Pluto

(Find video game sources: "Sega Pluto" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

no reliable sources, just a blog, not notable without the sources Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 21:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Sega Saturn. A basic Google search on "Sega Pluto" reveals that this unreleased gaming console is receiving coverage in various media outlets (e.g. [2][3][4][5]). Because reliable news sources have picked up on the claim, it can receive a mention. However, there's really not that much that can (or should) be said about the matter in an encyclopedic treatment of the subject, particularly as a discussion forum posting is at the source of the claim. One or two sentences mentioning this unreleased successor to the Sega Saturn within the context of that article should be sufficient. If more reliable information (e.g. technical specifications) and corresponding coverage in reliable sources were to come to light in the future, I would have no prejudice against the article being recreated. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, this nomination is a terrible failure of WP:BEFORE, as there are plenty of reliable sources on this. However, Im still unsure of whether or not there is enough to warrant a "keep", or if it should be a "merge/redirect" to the respective Sega consoles. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sega Saturn. While there are some sources, there's not a great deal of information, and it seems to be simply a slight variant of the Saturn with networking functionality. Every variation of a product doesn't need a separate article, particularly if it's never released. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sega Saturn. All of the usable sources refer to the same leak. There isn't even enough conclusive agreement on whether it's real. Even as vaporware (if the prototype is indeed one of two), there isn't enough information available to support an encyclopedia article. Merge and incubate in the Saturn's article, and if it can graduate to its own, fare thee well. czar · · 13:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There's not enough information for a stand-alone article, but there's plenty of sources on this, so it would probably be better as a subsection in the Sega Saturn article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As everyone said above, it's an unreleased version of a souped-up successor to the Saturn. So onto the Saturn page it should go. --ip.address.conflict (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are clearly several non-blog RSes available on this topic. Hoax or no, deletion should be off the table completely. With the available RSes, the article meets the minimum requirements for a standalone article in my view. Of course there's no requirement that all articles meeting the minimum reqs require a stand-alone article, though. A consensus-based decision to merge would be fine, though I'd really have preferred to see that discussion take place at WP:PM not at Article for Deletion. As Sergecross73 said above, a little WP:BEFORE would have gone along way here. The nom was fatally flawed from the start. -Thibbs (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. If there wasn't already an obvious parent article, I'd agree with you. However, since there is, it's probably better served in the context of Sega Saturn than being a pointlessly split stub. Ubcule (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sega Saturn. Doesn't need a separate article. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nim Vind. L Faraone 13:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fear Of Fashion

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and author declined PROD. Uberaccount (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ No assertion of notability, no reliable sources Boogerpatrol (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The artist has an article, and so it is not covered by A9. Redirecting is more logical, as per FreeRangeFrog. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 07:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, change my vote to Redirect not my most brilliant moment Boogerpatrol (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect And merge to Nim Vind, as is usual with records/singles that fail to meet WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus of uninvolved users is that there is insufficient significant coverage to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 14:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Wine and Beermaking

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

I originally speedily deleted this but has been re-created with some signs that speedy no longer applies (i.e. has some reviews from local sites). However, the reviews do not seem to pass the WP:N bar for me. I would still advocate for a deletion. Sasquatch t|c 21:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local shop with local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Notability has nothing to do with the geographical area of its impact.Arm the homeless (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - It is of consideration. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable on a local, regional and national level, its notability is however part of a niche group of people. see homebrewing. Arm the homeless (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I've declined my own speedy tag on this incarnation of the article on the basis of sources added, these sources do not show anything but local notability. Google News has nothing of note about them. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They provide educational value to the internet community. And they seem to have as many references as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwest_Supplies, a similar company, which isn't listed under AFD.--DavidDeaton231 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Other articles's existence on Wikipedia don't have a bearing whether this article should be kept. Perhaps the other article should also be deleted. Or perhaps there are sources for it that just haven't been added. But in any case, this article will be kept or deleted based on how it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; the only possibly RS (the small Riverfront Times piece) reads like an advert—typical chamber of commerce stuff. Miniapolis 12:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ^King Jakob _C2 11:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Betty Brosmer

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

Redirect to Joe Weider. Brosmer co-authored two fitness books with her husband Weider, an industry pioneer, but the media credits her with little else. Her article's other claims are dubious and sourced solely to a self-promotional website and books authored by in-laws. For example, she is credited with co-founding Shape and the International Federation of Bodybuilders, but Weider's numerous recent obituaries only credit Weider (and his brother) for this; Brosmer is generally mentioned in passing as a former model he married. Coverage dedicated solely to her is lacking, and what there is to say about her is covered succinctly in her husband's article. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My first reaction was that this would be a "Delete" but then I looked at www.bettybrosmer.com, which is actually a fansite rather than a personal site, and I have to say - she obviously had a massive amount of exposure and publicity in her day. Scanning through the magazine cover gallery, there are several references to articles within the magazines on her, so she wasn't just a cover girl, but someone with articles on her. Being on so many magazine covers (often as the sole cover star) in the 1950s/60s, means that she was obviously very well known at the time and widely recognised. Publication wise, I see a Spanish book about the history of obscenity calling her the definitive 50s pin-up, and a few other mentions, but not many. Because she was big in the 1950s and 60s, and the publications that would have covered her aren't the type of publications that would be a priority for digitising, most of the sources/notability material is not readily available. There looks to be quite a bit about her in the Newspaperarchive (subscription required to read articles, which I don't have, but I can search and see results.) from the 1950s onwards. I'm going to say that the sheer volume of exposure and magazine space that she demonstrably received, in a very definitely pre-Internet age, is evidence of notability. Mabalu (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say, however - "the first supermodel"? Oy. Unsourced claims like that need to be killed with fire - just how many claimed "first supermodels" are out there, anyway? Mabalu (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that Brosmer had success as a model, but I feel it's problematic to justify an article using cover scans on a fansite and an online newspaper archive neither of us can access because 1) we have to infer a level of significance on our own for the former, and 2) we have no idea what's actually in the archive (are the hits for full articles, passing mentions, or just photo captions?) and we can't source anything from it. Can we justify a stand-alone article with questionable claims with these - and one sentence in the history of obscenity book - as our independent sourcing? In sourcing articles on prominent '50s pin-up girls like Bettie Page, we don't come even close to having this kind of sourcing problem. If Brosmer was on Page's level - and Brosmer's article certainly suggests she was - I see no reason to think we wouldn't easily find similar coverage. What we can independently source for Brosmer will leave the article a two-sentence stub. I still feel the redirect is appropriate without better sourcing. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bettie Page was not a simple pin-up like Brosmer, but had a more specialized niche. This has apparently given her a cult-following which has lasted into the internet age, but says nothing about which of the two was more widely known during the 1950's... AnonMoos (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In the 1950's, she was a very noted "pin-up" girl, who was as famous as many well-known actresses (at least in the United States). AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's debatable. There are a decent amount of 1950s newspapers from the United States available on Google News. How does the amount of Brosmer's coverage in those newspapers compare to that of "well-known actresses"? Not very well, it looks like. I realize that lots of sources are not available free online, and Brosmer may still be notable even if she was less famous than well-known actresses. Nevertheless, the number of sources we can find free online doesn't appear to support the idea that Brosmer was very famous. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly significant as co-author of pioneer books about bodybuilding. More serious references need to be added, however.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to South Carolina's 1st congressional district special election, 2013. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Turner

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

This is definitely a borderline case. He fails WP:POLITICIAN, and his notability is largely WP:INHERITED. He may pass WP:GNG, since there are multiple sources with in-depth coverage of his congressional run. But that may also mean he's notable primarily for one event. If he continues his political career, he should meet our notability standards. If he sticks to his career as a schoolteacher, he probably won't. So what do we do in the meantime? BDD (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Carolina’s 2013 special election is/should be the proper outcome when there is uncertainty about a future political career or for losing Congressional candidates. Enos733 (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Enos733. Ray^Talk 16:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Carolina's 1st congressional district special election, 2013. Perhaps it is too soon for the subject to have a stand alone article, but the reasoning of BDD appears to be sound. The subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, and therefore clearly meets WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO; however, that coverage is all surrounding a single event which is the subject of the article South Carolina's 1st congressional district special election, 2013 and thus falls under WP:BLP1E. As such per WP:POLOUTCOMES a redirect to that event is in order. If the subject of this AfD becomes involved in other races for national office in the future and receive significant coverage for those races, than a standalone article can be revived from the redirect that this AfD it presently appears this AfD will create. As noted by BDD the subject isn't basing his notability based on his notable father; although WP:NOTINHERITED does apply, there is sufficient significant coverage of the individual himself that it is not really a concern IMHO. When the redirect is created may I suggest Template:R with possibilities be used.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 05:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's a complete lack of agreement here on the best way forward with this article, but there's definitely no consensus to delete it - the content appears useful somewhere, whether it's in the form of a transwiki, a merge, a rewrite, or a combination of these. Unfortunately this AfD has not provided a strong pointer in any particular one of those directions. ~ mazca ^talk 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grantsmanship

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

Reads like an instruction manual (WP:NOTHOWTO). Yes, AfD is not cleanup, but this has been tagged as "essay" since 2011. Sandstein 20:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTESSAY issues with this article are abundantly clear. The article doesn't get many visits or edits. That said, there are bunch of references which cover Grantsmanship. Its notability seems clear. As the nom mentions, this would definitely be a clean up delete. NickCT (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. This is a nicely written essay that would take a lot of work to convert to an encyclopedic article. The topic is clearly notable, so the only argument for deletion is that it needs to be blown up, per WP:TNT. Outright deletion would be a waste of good material. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, such essays are quite appropriate for transcluding to Wikibooks. Stubifying the article would also be appropriate, but then we'd lose the material. --Mark viking (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (somehow). Rather instructive. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Grant writing, which is a stub, but probably has the more appropriate name for an encyclopedic article on the subject. The length of time a cleanup tag has been unresolved is not relevant to an AfD. The topic is clearly notable and it can certainly be made more encyclopedic. As well as changing the writing style, one could discuss studies on grant writing such as this. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grant writing is only a part of the process. The grantsmanship also involves selection of the subject, planning and executing the scientific project, "selling" the project, reviewing grant applications, etc. Lots of people do it, and there is a lot of literature. Indeed, current version is written very much as a "how to" instruction. However, the subject is notable and has significant potential for development. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yngwie Malmsteen. ~ mazca ^talk 22:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April Malmsteen

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

Wife of a notable musician. Founded a record label who's only notable act is her husband. Lack of secondary sources but PROD was contested. Doesn't meet WP:N for me. Perhaps a redirect to Yngwie Malmsteen would be more appropriate? Sasquatch t|c 19:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed redirection to Yngwie's page would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.247.46 (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polynomial recurrence

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

Non-notable type of recursion, which, if it needs encyclopaedic treatment, should receive it as a minor subsection in an article like recurrence relation. Currently an orphan linked only from the page on Michael Somos, despite having been around for years. There are a few hundred Google Books and Scholar hits for the term; as far as I can tell, none or almost none refer to recursions of the type discussed in the article. JBL (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Polynomial recurrences play a role in in dynamical systems theory, connecting Poincare recurrence to additive combinatorics through the work of Hillel Furstenberg and others; Terence Tao has a nice lecture on this. They also play a role in the theory of cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generators and in special functions. The current article is but a particular definition, but it seems like the topic of the article has potential to be expanded. --Mark viking (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the situations you mention, there are also so-called "polynomially-recursive sequences" in combinatorics (which is what I was looking for when I came across this article). I agree that there is probably an interesting article to be written with a name similar to the one of the current article (there are, after all, several hundred book and scholar hits). But I don't think the current content of the article bears any relationship to what would appear in such an article, and moreover there's so little there that it's not as if deleting the current article would be a barrier to writing a more useful one. --JBL (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The topic is clearly notable and relates to Somos sequences. Deltahedron (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this notability come from? Can you find any source that considers the class of such recurrences? The fact that Somos sequences are examples does not automatically make this generalization notable. --JBL (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to recurrence relation. The notion described in the present article is a non-linear generalization of linearly recursive sequences. I'm by no means an expert in such things, but the definition seems to be rather obscure, and the present article title does not seem to be a good fit. I think the material would be better as a section of the recurrence relation article. Ozob (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a common use of "polynomial recurrence". Alternatively, move to algebraic recurrence and merge to recurrence relation. A "polynomial recurrence" should be $a_{n}=P(a_{n-1},a_{n-2},\ldots ,a_{n-k}),$ , where P is a polynomial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. with extreme prejudice. What will it take to remove this? Not that it is a big deal, but it has been over 4 years. Here are the facts: Exactly one article links to this aside from stuff like "pages flagged as problematic in March 2009" and the like. That one page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Somos which has 1.5 lines of text. It says: " he proposed a conjecture about certain polynomial recurrences, now called Somos sequences " If you go to the linked article it is nicely self contained and has a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrence_relation. SO there is no reason for this to be here although it isn't hurting anything either except, I suppose, that people arrive here looking for something else. Gentlemath (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nemanja Kustrimovic

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

Footballer whose team is not part of a fully professional league; also a lack of independent and verifiable sources; I cannot even find him listed at the team's site. (The page was created via Articles for Creation.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2013 (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) 02:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – according to the sources he has played twice in the third tier of Serbian football. Will be leaving accepting editor from the AfC a message about this, as the subject clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. C 679 21:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For reasons already explained. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not represented his country at senior level or appeared in a match in a fully pro league, which means the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus here is that there is insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 22:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Namman Muay

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

This article is about a liniment but has no sources that actually mention it by name. The only source refers to the IKF's allowance of certain rubbing compounds which doesn't show this product is notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one Thai boxing book written in Italian that mentioned the product briefly twice, once in a list of Thai boxing equipment, another time describing the use of the product. Boxe thailandese: muay thai, pages 53, 146–147. This mention is very brief, being without a discussion of the product's history or significance. I found no other third party sources discussing this product, only sales and promotion sites and booklets. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A brief Google search reveals articles covering the subject from Positioning Magazine and Thai Post (both in Thai). --Paul_012 (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I call advertisement.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no significant independent coverage of this product. The sources mentioned by Paul_012 don't do it. The first is a few paragraph profile of a company officer while the second is hard to read (at least via Google translate), but seems more of a PR announcement. A concluding paragraph that says "Support Thailand because of the quality of our products" and "our products are sold in pharmacies nationwide" does not seem like independent news reporting. Papaursa (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A fair argument can be made that the article was created prematurely, but given that there is at least some shreds of information and the season will clearly be taking place in the not-too-distant future, there's no real consensus to delete it. ~ mazca ^talk 22:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season

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

Article created prematurely, considering the 2012–13 season has yet to conclude. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" applies here. However, while it is 99.99% certain to happen in a few months, there isn't actually anything of note we can say on the subject for a few weeks/months. Delete, and re-create in due course. Giant Snowman 19:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say that there is no point for deletion for 2 reasons. 1st reason is that this article can be used as a reference of CONFIRMED events that will happen in the future, like for example a confirmed new manager or the recently revealed 2013/2014 jersey. The 2nd reason is that if you propose that we're going to make this page again in the future, I don't see the point of deletion in the first place. Longo jahado 1:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
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} 07:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I might have voted "delete as premature", but the staryt is only 3.5 months away, so I desist fromthat. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete via CSD G7 (Non-admin closure). — sparklism ^hey! 07:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cali Cashflo

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The references in the article appear to be the same press release or bio blurb splatted across a variety of web sites. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Kila

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. the best of the lot would be the New York magazine item but he is just one of several profiles in the article and doesn't cover him in a significant way. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Khan Qureshi

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

Apparently non-notable social entrepreneur. No hits on Google News.
I just created this article as a move from category space, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013_April_8#Category:Akbar_Khan_Qureshi.
However, when I then speed-read it, it seemed to be full of WP:PEACOCK phrasing ... and the assertion of notability that I had thought I had spotted in the opening sentence was misleading. It says that Quershi is "current Ambassador of India for Nations United", which I misread as the United Nations. In fact, "Nations United" is Qureshi's own venture.
The article was created by Akbarkq (talk · contribs), whose had previously created the page in article space where it was deleted as a result of a PROD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete It doesn't look to me that Nations United is the subject's own project, as he is not listed here. But anyway, the award from them can not be regarded as notable, and I have found no wider evidence (Google, Higbeam, Questia) that the subject is notable. AllyD (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found one hit for this individual on a website I've never heard of called "Faces for Transformation." I'm not sure the single source regarding developments in...ahem...goat farming qualify as a notable subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inakube

(Find video game sources: "Inakube" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

A dusty old article about an app, with zero secondary sources, reviews, or anything - just a link to the app store. No apparent press coverage, I can only dig up a single press release. I prodded it earlier and an IP woke up to revert me, without providing any sources or improvement to the article. McGeddon (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no secondary sources, only some press releases. With no secondary sources, this topic fails notability guidelines, per WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, and should be removed. --Mark viking (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the users above, I can find nothing beyond the basic PR; fails WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All original research and no secondary sources available online, even though this is a recent app. Fails GNG. czar · · 22:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. I'm finding no secondary sources to establish notability. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Geoffroy

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

Largely unsourced, self-promotional BLP doesn't pass WP:ARTIST or GNG. Also putting up several of his related subpages for AfD. czar · · 16:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This source seems to suggest that there are likely other similar sources out there that could satisfy general notability GNG--a search of google scholar (on the second page) reveals that there is probably enough material if sourced properly. His longevity and the quality of venues such as MoMA_PS1 also suggest that there is something to the work which ought to satisfy WP:ARTIST. Perhaps a Merge with one of the artist's more prominent pieces, Emergency Room (art), also listed as an AfD, which also needs better sourcing, woud be a reasonable action rather than outright deletion, but work will need to be done.--Marctasman (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched Scholar earlier and only found one ref that could even possibly count as anything more than a fleeting mention. Re: P.S. 1, I haven't found any commentary on critical reception of the show or any information on its impact—partially why I said it failed every point of WP:ARTIST, even if that Artwrit (RS?) interview is counted. czar · · 22:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this editing works, but I can see that the statement above does indeed include some wrong statements. I am a Danish journalist, critic and commentator, and I worked for Denmark's biggest weekly - Weekendavisen - from 1995 to 2012. I wrote about Thierry Geoffroy several and times, both in regard to projects in USA (MoMA PS1) and Denmark (GalleriPoulsen). Also the leading Danish newspapers POlitiken, Information and Børsen have published reviews and interviews with Thierry Geoffroy. A large number of articles on Thierry Geoffroy (and "Emergency Art"/"Emergency Room" etc) can be found in the Danish media data base Infomedia.dk (which is owned and run by most the Danish news publishing houses in collaboration) - as well as art websites and yearbooks in Denmark. Geoffroy is a household name in Denmark, people who knows about contemporary art know him - and he has even had a series of art films shown in DR2 (Denmark's National Brodcasting Company's culture and news station). Regards Nikolaj Mangurten Rubin (former surname Lassen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.58.118 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a few searches and did not find anything larger than listings, nevertheless full articles that can be used to prove notability with ample details for an encyclopedia article. Could you provide some of the links to these secondary, reliable sources that discuss his work? (no hits in infomedia.dk and I can't access their private database, nothing in relation with "Nikolaj Mangurten" and "Geoffroy", one link for Weekendavisen on Geoffroy's own site, nothing from Politiken/Information/Borsen) czar · · 03:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MOMA / PS1 exhibition has been reviewed and commented by different sources that are given in this article, please check them again :

The Brian Lehrer Show Where Art and Journalism Collide : http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2007/mar/06/

Format Emergency Room at MOMA / PS1 New York. Report from Reuters 2007 The art of news http://www.reuters.com/video/2007/02/27/the-art-of-news?videoId=14672

Live From N.Y., It's Yesterday's News By James Dewille Published February 21, 2007 http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2007/02/21/live-ny-its-yesterdays-news Fa bene si (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can argue that these links are critical commentary that cover the "significant coverage" portion of the GNG. The WNYC link wasn't even related to the topic, but I found this (which was), and like the Reuters two-minute piece, it covers the event but doesn't establish enduring notability (WP:NOTNEWS). Also I'm not sure the Columbia student paper counts as a reliable source. czar · · 13:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but needs a major clean up. His work seems to attract international coverage, for example two German news articles about "Critical Run" [6][7] are already cited in the article. His "Emergency Room" concept has also been covered, for example in the Columbia Spectator and the Hanoi Times. There's also Kunsten.nu about "Biennalist". At least meets WP:CREATIVE. Sionk (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant exhibits at major museums. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP Emergency Room (art) and MERGE the rest to Thierry Geoffroy. Spinning Spark 16:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Room (art)

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

Non-notable subpages (declared genres of art) of non-notable artist's practice (his AfD). Doesn't pass GNG nor have RS via Google search. Several dePROD'd by SPA. Bundling related articles for deletion:

czar · · 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Delete All~~ Comment - thay are all clearly neologisms conceived by Thierry Geoffroy. Though I'd say Emergency Room may conceivably be a notable project. However, the article would need to fundamentally renamed and rewritten to be suitable for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my recommendation. I'm willing to believe these events, though not widely accepted terms in the art world, may be widespread enough and notable enough for their own entries in Wikipedia. The Thierry Geoffroy AfD was closed as 'Keep'. At worst the above articles should be merged into Thierry Geoffroy, which may be the best solution in the interim (unless someone fleshes them out pronto). Emergency Room has been rolled-out globally and, being a more recent concept, has several online sources available. Sionk (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you use to substantiate their notability (esp. the non-Emergency Room pages)? (Also note that the Geoffroy AfD was closed without any discussion of the keep claims. Based on the several users who have come out of the woodwork to support him, there has been much COI editing to go around but no source-checking.) czar · · 16:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I'm commenting on the AfD and not jumping either way (though erring towards 'merge' in the interim). Check the Thierry Geoffroy article. I began to incorporate some of the better sources into it today but ran out of time. A work in progress! Sionk (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the dilemma that I think Emergency Room (art) should be kept, as a real concept that has been deployed in numerous locations involving dozens of artists. It seems to me it is a concept that many people (i.e. the Press) understand and want to report. But the others should be merged to Thierry Geoffroy, as non-notable affectations of the artist. It looks like the other 'keep' advocates (below) are also referring to "Emergency Room". Is there some way the four 'add-ons' can be separated? Or does this AfD go to 'No concensus' followed by re-nomination? Sionk (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can vote keep on ER and merge for the rest, if you prefer. There is only one keep advocate below, the same user with unsigned comments, and since he's posting press releases as reliable sources, it looks like he didn't read my comment. This AfD will be relisted once or twice more before it's closed as no consensus. czar · · 23:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life's too short ;) There's also The Delay Museum to consider. It will need merging into either Thierry Geoffroy or Emergency Room (art) at some point, I expect. Sionk (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! Missed that one—responded on talk page czar · · 04:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge into the article on the artist. Reasonable solution DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Emergency Room is a growing communauty and has involved hundreds of artists in New York , Berlin ; Paris ; Hanoi etc..

some of the artists have dedicated special chapters to ER as they seem to consider some of their works as emergency art . Here some I found for now, by googling an artist name with the word emergency art or emergency room , but there are maybe 200 artists listed if this list is updated ( http://www.emergencyrooms.org/artists.html ) 200 international artists minimum have been connected to this group , or movement ? some research have to be done in vietnamese or greek to be traced .

so far i found

Nadia Plesner with 5 main projects ( Napoli / Paris / Hanoi , Wrocalw , Copenhagen / http://www.nadiaplesner.com/emergency-room

Sophie Hjerl , on the danish art agency official page http://www.kunstdk.dk/kunstner/sophie_hjerl/vaerker/emergency-art

Guillaume Dimanche :http://www.myope.com/exhib/2009/index.html

Frank Franzen : http://www.frankfranzen.com/emergency-artworks.aspx

Amina Bech :http://www.aminabech.net/emergencyroom

David Marin :http://www.marindavid.com/worclav.php

Niels Bonde : http://nielsbonde.blogspot.dk/2013/03/emergency-room-ps1-moma.html

Toby Barnes : http://www.tobybarnesart.com/EmergencyOne.html

Peter Lind : http://peterlind.org/emergencyroom.html Fa bene si (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melina Pena :http://penalamelina.blogspot.dk/2009/10/emergency-room-pan-pallazo-delle-arti.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicoss (talk • contribs) 06:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Dicoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for the links, but on Wikipedia, notability for inclusion is judged by the GNG and its associated guidelines, which have specific criteria for link quality. In a sentence, articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (This is explained at WP:42.) The articles listed above are largely self-published sources or unreliable sources that do not help with that. They would be removed from any encyclopedia article. czar · · 16:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is it so that the danish art agency is not a reliable source ?

http://www.kunstdk.dk/kunstner/sophie_hjerl/vaerker/emergency-art

, also the name of those artist have been publishedby several institutions including MOMA / PS1 but also on recognise institution like the polish Presidency . Ministery of culture and heritage , Ministery of foreign affair ; Education and Culture  ( please scroll down ) http://www.culturecongress.eu/en/event/format_emergency_room

is the publishing house Revolver not reliable ? http://www.revolver-books.de/w3NoM.php?nodeId=1084 or the institution PAN in Napoli ?http://www.comune.napoli.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/9193 or the prince of Denmark report in main danish newspaper Politiken http://politiken.dk/erhverv/ECE1464565/kronprinsen-sprang-paa-cyklen-for-klimaet/

Is the ZKM museum , Hans Belting and Peter Weibel not reliable source ?

or Weekendavisen , most serious danish weekly paper not reliable ?

or the a 20 mi program in the The Brian Lehrer Show "Where Art and Journalism Collide " dedicated to 4 Emergency Room artists http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2007/mar/06/ not reliable enough

Artnet ? is not reliable either ? presenting artists like Baptiste Debombourg or John Kørner ? http://www.artnet.fr/magazine/portraits/THOMAS/EMERGENCY%20ROOM.asp

is the BBC reliable source even in vietnamese ?http://www.bbc.co.uk/vietnamese/vietnam/2011/11/111128_emergencyroom_art.shtml

Is Nadia Plesner not reliable when she made special issue of her appartenance to the group https://www.google.dk/search?q=emergency+room+nadia+plesner&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicoss (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be an amator wikipedia users , but I have the feeling some one erased all the names of the artists that participated in the Emergency Room communauty , how is this possible , to make history disapear ? who did that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicoss (talk • contribs) 19:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can view how contributions changed the article over time via the "History" tab at the top of the article. Sionk included the rationale as to why the list was removed. The vast majority of the linked articles are not reliable, and many of those that are are brief mentions (press announcements) and not significant coverage. You can read more about this here and here. czar · · 23:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were mainly removed because they were unsourced and almost all non-notable. With lists of living people in particular, this is a big no-no. See WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline. Sionk (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understand thank you to give learning , and please receive my excuses to have not been through all the wikipedia rules yet ,it is not easy for me here , but why not keep the notable one ? the sourced ones like some mentioned above ? they must be about 40 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicoss (talk • contribs) 06:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC) you say they " were almost all not notable " , but is wikipedia not a case by case plattform ? where some get erased and eliminated , and some can remain until next judgement ? can we erase all because of "almost" as an acceptable definition ? ( in this case maybe almost is about 40 artists) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicoss (talk • contribs) 07:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Which ones of "the almost " could we saved for beeing erased , is wikipedia purpose to save history like doctors try to save life ? if there is any one to save from deletion should we not try to save them ?[reply]

How did you do research , did you take name by name or just delete all artists at once in one go ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicoss (talk • contribs) 07:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC) None of those artists name were debated just eliminated , should we not take name by name and debate if they fullfill the criteria and why and why not ? one by one . some are also from other part like Vietnam , or have reference in greek linguage etc . The Emergency Room commnauty has existed for 7 years in ,i think, 10 countries with space implantation in Museum like MOMA / PS1 or PAN Napoli or the academy of fine art in Hanoi ... some of those artist must be eligible here in wikipedia to survive elimination . at least this should be debate case by case carefuly . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicoss (talk • contribs) 07:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually editing follows the pattern of bold (add), revert edit, discuss on talk page. Sionk started a section on the talk page if you want to discuss the edit further. Also, you are very familiar with ER for a new editor—if you have a relation to the article or artist, please remember to disclose any potential conflict of interest. czar · · 02:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Emergency Room, Merge the rest (trimmed of waffle) to the biography (or so merge all). Johnbod (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:G12. There was no good version to revert to. This deletion is without prejudice to recreation in a non-promotional form and without the copyvio content. TerriersFan (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori Jewish Day School

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

non notable school, reads like ad author removed PROD Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 15:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Probably a non-notable, elementary school. The current promotional language makes me want to vote for deletion. However, since I'd rather see articles rescued than deleted, here are some potential sources: [8], [9], [10], [11]. [12], [13], [14], [15]. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm voting delete, though I'm guessing this will end up as a keep. Wikipedia has a weird inclusionist bias when it comes to schools. NickCT (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and entirely promotional. There may be an article to be written about this school, but this ain't it! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright infringement from the school's website and LinkedIn profile. CSD G11 may also apply. This may be a high school, but the article needs to go. Tagged for G12. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Appreciation Day

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

This is supposedly a localized event by undisclosed "organizations" and other obscure people since 2005. There is no indication that this event is notable. Google searches point to things of little credible value, such as re-iterations of the wikipedia article, blogs, or unrelated tea-tasting events. Googlebooks give no credible hits. Cold Season (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't seem to find many meaningful references for this article either. NickCT (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a sucker for cultural articles, but I don't see anything that can demonstrate notability or even significant coverage. Would be happy to change my mind if I saw some sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a news article covering the day in the San Diego Union-Tribune, but no other reliable sources. There are several meet-ups worldwide for the event and a number of blogs about it. My impression is that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON--the event just hasn't been around long enough to generate independent coverage. While the topic doesn't meet notability thresholds per WP:GNG, there is no prejudice to re-creation if multiple reliable sources become available. Now that I know about the day, I plan to celebrate it myself. --Mark viking (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nominator withdrawn based on improved references. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freud Communications

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Article used for advertising and promotion. It is little more than a list of clients. Rushton2010 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Over the last few days the article has been substantially improved and all the issues, I believe, have been addressed so that deletion is no longer needed.
Rushton2010 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this PR company is a very well known and is notable in UK PR/Media circles and although the article clearly, in my view, could do with some work and needs proper sourcing clicking on Google news provides many reliable sources. The noted employers and clients are part of what drives its notability. Such articles are difficult to get right I think but I don't think deletion is needed. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)) PS: Guidelines usefull here might be Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability.Msrasnw (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)PPS: The company is a large one - with a turnover of around £40million/year and a staff of 200+ - and is ranked by PR Week in their ranking system as 6th in the UK [16]. I am not sure if, or how, turnover and size contribute to notability but they would seem to me to have some possible role so long as it is verifiable and reliably sourced.[reply]

PS: Have added a note on PRWeek story about them editing wikipedia on behalf of their clients. I don't know if this adds to the desirablity or otherwises of keeping this article. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

PS: I have added some more refs on its history and on their edit "things" for their clients. The Refs are from the Times. The most recent ref I could find refers to it as Freud Communications, the PR behemoth but I am not sure if this should be added. (Whittell, Giles The Times December 11, Tuesday pg. 4,5) (Msrasnw (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Comment Could merge with Matthew Freud in preference to deletion: its actions are closely linked to that of its high-profile founder, so it's unlikely there will be much press coverage that doesn't mention Freud. However, keeping is also possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect and limited merge per Colapeninsula. This business is majority owned by another PR business. The bulk of the article text consists of a client lists. Nothing in the article text suggests that this business, all by itself, has had the sort of lasting effects on its industry or anything else that would make it worthy of memory in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and limited merge. There is very little to the article about the actual business with the exception of a list of clients. The business does not appear to be notable by itself but I agree with Colapeninsula and Smerdis: the best course would be to merge the relevant non promotional sections to the page of the founder and then delete the page.Rushton2010 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been partially improved over the last few days. The notability issue seems to hang off the fact that in 2011 it was rated the 6th best PR company in the UK by PR Weekly. There are still issues with neutral tone and all told, there doesn't seem to be a lot to say about the company itself. I would therefore reaffirm Merge and Delete. It would be more appropriate as an in-depth paragraph or two on the Founder's page than as a stub article with questions of notability hanging over it's head. Rushton2010 (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 8th largest in a major company in a major line of business is notable by any reasonable standard. I have tried to delete a good number of articles on firms in this industry, usually with success; this is above the bar in terms of importance. It may be owned by another company, but its operated independently. Atthe very lkeast, it can of course be merged with the founder. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 13:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Jonas

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

Notability is not established for this author's CV of an article, which could well be here for publicity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 18. Snotbot t • c » 15:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This source is sufficient for general notability, IMO, and her body of work (15 books, almost all of which are still in print, published by mainstream publishers and reviewed by reputable sources) appears to me to be sufficient for WP:ARTIST. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author of an ala notable book is sufficient, especially in context of her many other books. This isn't a or promotional, just a straightforward bio with a bibliography. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TLDRLegal

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

Seems a bit too fresh to be notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When the article itself tries to argue notability, that's a strong indication that it isn't. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Saw a brief mention in book, Jump Start Responsive Web Design, haven't come across much other secondary source coverage, yet. — Cirt (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. As per WP:TOOSOON. The subject does have significant coverage in a reliable source (Network World seems to have good editorial oversight), but I was unable to find other websites with similarly detailed write-ups or news stories. Given that notability generally requires multiple reliable secondary sources, I'm hesitant to give support to keeping an article on a subject so close to the borderline on notability requirements. Chri$topher 20:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equip4work

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I would speedy it but it makes a somewhat reasonable claim for notability ("first online-only office...") but I can't find anything to back this up. Also reads like a bit of an advertisement or directory listing. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have done the exact same thing, brought it here. While it makes a claim of notability, it doesn't seem to made a very strong case and the bulk of the article is contact info, which bumps it up against G11. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy to edit the article. Not trying to advertise at all. Would you prefer I delete the contact information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanphillips2013 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jean, yes we try not to use Wikipedia as a directory so removing the contact information would be a great start. Have a read over Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and consider taking the article to articles for creation if it does end up being deleted. I'm happy to answer questions here or on my talk page. Thanks for being understanding and welcome to Wikipedia Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11. Mdann52 (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of meeting notability criteria. Seems almost entirely promotional. What references are given either did not mention them (and have been removed) or are trivial. noq (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising, and I don't think that a claim to having supplied furniture for a TV show really counts as an minimal assertion of importance, either. Being an online business makes them less notable, not more. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- I find it hard to believe that a sales company with 55 employees isnotable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Alyssa Thorne

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

spam from Voidz. non notable individual, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. sourcing is a mix of imbd, blogs andnon reliable sources. nothing independent or substantial. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Creator blocked for advertising. Apparent vanity. NickCT (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are mostly all the subject's own self-published words copied from web site to web site. I cannot find any reliable secondary sources. No notable. Joja lozzo 01:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Soup Dragons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang Ten!

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

Notability is neither claimed nor established for this little-known compilation album. The two sources just provided show existence but make no claims in its support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Soup Dragons, and by merge I mean add a note there re. the three ~~EPs~~singles that this compiles. There isn't much beyond that here. --Michig (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge and delete

Alternatives to deletion

{{WP:NALBUMS}} states that if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.

I checked the history for this article and note that use of other methods of dispute resolution such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input as required by {{WP:NALBUMS}}. or adding suitable tags was not used first.

It may be reasonable to merged the album into the artist's main article or discography article as per {{WP:NALBUMS}} which states "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting", but this may lead to the bands article page becoming cluttered. Robcamstone (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated opinion: Having recheck The Soup Dragons article I note it has a basic Discography Section, which could have the information here merged with relative ease. So I have changed my vote. As the wikilink for the album Hang Ten! on The Soup Dragons would only redirect a user back to that same article, I would suggest once the infomation has been merged then the deletion could go ahead. Robcamstone (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(nom) Merging does sound reasonable, yes. I don't personally think a track listing need be preserved for minor compilation albums, so it should cause little 'clutter'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QuHarrison Terry

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

spam from Voidz. non notable individual, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. sourcing is a mix of a blog mention and a video a performace where he happened to be playing. nothing independent or substantial. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources are ads for albums. This does not meet our notability standards. Joja lozzo 01:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community Cash

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

spam from Voidz. non notable website, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix pr and primary duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 18. Snotbot t • c » 13:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in terms of notability surrounds this article. The sources in the article do not meet guidelines for reliable sources and even the Yahoo source is a broken link. Search of Google and HighBeam turns up nothing related to the website that could be used to establish notability. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ditto, obvious spam. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 03:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NioGold Mining Corporation

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

spam from Voidz. non notable company, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix pr, primary and listings. I found nothing past run of the mill reports fort stockmarkets, no substantial independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found a few quite notable sources in the industry that have given specific coverage towards the company including The Globe and Mail, Cambridge House International, The Gold Report, Journalist Jay Taylor, owner of Ahead of the Herd Rick Mills, Metal News and 24Hour Gold. I feel that though the company may not be notable world wide, it is quite well known in its industry. In Vancouver and Quebec, Canada especially is where the company gets its third party coverage. Would it help if I were to add all of the references listed above into the page? I'm really not trying to add spam, please let me know if there's anything I can do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinSpiro (talk • contribs) 17:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Standard fare sourcing for a spam article. Having your company name simply mentioned in a list of business or government document isn't the same as establishing notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a spam article, started by an editor for hire, sockpuppet account. All the news sources are press releases. Joja lozzo 19:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure if I can put links here but here are the links to these sources, as you can see it is not simply mentioned in a list, but are actually getting coverage:

http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-company-gold-silver-the-gold-report-jay-taylor-updates-niogold-mining-tsx-v-nox-.aspx?articleid=542567

http://www.metalsnews.com/Metals+News/MetalsNews/Dr.+Allen+Alper/FEATURED727135/NioGold+Mining+Corporation+(TSXV+NOX)+Expands+Gold+Resources+in+Historic+Val+dOr+Region+of+Abitibi+Gold+Belt+in+Cana.htm

http://www.theaureport.com/pub/na/10051

http://www.theaureport.com/pub/video/393 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinSpiro (talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such stock pumping web sites do not vouch for any of the information they publish and they often include advice by people who hold positions in the stocks. I don't think these sites confer any more notability than that small amount already provided by being listed on an exchange. And don't you think it's time you gave public notice of your relationship with the company? Joja lozzo 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: I don't feel they are stock pumping web sites as you don't pay to get coverage on them, they come to you if they feel you have a good story. But in the end it's up to you guys on the fate of this page! My relationship with the company is that I recently have been getting interested in junior mining and exploration companies, living in one of the biggest mining hubs of the world (Vancouver, BC) we're surrounding by mining companies, Howe Street is famous for it in the industry. I've started to realize that mining is extremely important as almost everything we own is a product of mining at some stage of development. I noticed that there were a number of companies that extract the minerals such as Kinross Gold, Barrick Gold, and Newmont Mining Corporation on wikipedia, but hardly any of the companies that actually find the land (exploration and development) that then gets sold to these extraction companies. I then took it upon myself to create some pages for (what I thought) were notable junior exploration companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinSpiro (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the Kevin Spiro who is the account manager for the marketing and promotions company, Viral Network, "that specializes in:Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Google+, Youtube and more), Online advertising, SEO, Video Production and Email Marketing for Public Companies" and who has NioGold Mining as a client? [my emphasis] Joja lozzo 18:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO Good catch, Jojalozza. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 12:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Yes, they are a client of the company I work for though I'm not creating the page for them because they're a client. I work in a field that I am passionate about and I plan on making these pages for a number of notable companies in the junior exploration and development space, regardless of if I have a work connection with that company or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinSpiro (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's too promotional. cf: "NioGold’s experienced and qualified technical team are overseeing the advancement of these projects, with current drill programs underway targeting expansion of the resource base." ; "NioGold also plans on continuing to drill on the Siscoe East property, this property lies on-trend between two of the highest-grade past producers in the area; the Sullivan and Siscoe mines with total production of nearly 2M oz gold." overemphasis on details of the financing ; dependence upon the notability of the general area where it works, It's nonetheless a somewhat notable firm based on the sources, and an article might be possible. KevinSpiro, it will be a good idea to make further articles through the AfC process. It's not policy that it be necessary, but it will help remove the inappropriate material before it gets to mainspace. It can be difficult to work in a field that one is passionate about without losing a sense of proportion, and you've gotten very close to the line. I am one of the relatively few people here willing to supporting editing by those as involved as you are, but it has to lead to a more encyclopedic quality than this. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment DGG, that makes sense I see the bias in the wording. I understand if this page should be deleted, alternatively I'd be more than happy to go through and change the wording to what you would see in an encyclopaedia. I can remove the financing details as well, and put in what would would see on a balance sheet instead (or just remove the section entirely) as I believe it would be much more unbiased as you can see from the table on the top right their net income is actually in the negative! I'll refrain from any sort of bias or 'promotion' in any further articles (if allowed to create them). And I'll be sure to create any additional articles though the AfC process as well. Nevertheless, thank you for your support on this topic and supporting passionate writers in wikipedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinSpiro (talk • contribs) 20:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view about financials is that well-sourced statements of income and capitalization are useful indications of the size of a business concern, and if over a period can show growth--or the lack of it; details about who exactly provided the money is usually unnecessary, unless the result was to purchase or gain a controlling interest in the company. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LPS (lubricant)

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

spam from Voidz. non notable product, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix pr and primary duffbeerforme (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom. Doesn't make a case for independent notability here, and yes, appears to be rather spammy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, smells like spam--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, looks like business spam. Can't find it anywhere in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk)
Delete This article does nothing to move the project forward. The subject is a minor product with no reliable secondary coverage. Joja lozzo 01:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SIGCOV. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Siduri. Some merging may be done if reliably sourced. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Siduri

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

Fails WP:ORG. The church's webpage advertises the free book which is the 2nd source (and has been added to several articles as a source despite failing WP:SPS). Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete: I had also tried to establish notability of this organization and was unable to do so - the only sources seem to be primary (the organization's website, and a self-published ebook by a man trying to promote Sidurism). I had merged the content to Siduri, and would still not be opposed to a partial merger (although I probably put too much of the original content in). Failing that, the article should be deleted. LadyofShalott 13:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 13:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 13:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Over 40,000 websites mention the modern Siduri movement/book (SOURCE: I Googled "Teachings of Siduri"), plus Peter Dyr's book on Siduri "The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Teachings of Siduri and How Siduri's Ancient Advice Can Help Guide Us to a Happier Life" is currently a highly rated "Fiction Classics" Bestseller on Amazon.com (SOURCE: researchered book on Amazon's website - http://amzn.com/B00B5KFX06); seems popular enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia to me. My vote is for merge, I have re-introduced the original reference to the modern movement from a few months ago, which is at the end of the page on Siduri (see current version). I hope you, my esteemed editorial colleagues, consider this compromise acceptable.76.174.24.136 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC) George Pyle[reply]
- Of course, "Teachings of Siduri" is not the same as "Church of Siduri". This article is about the specific named organization. Also that a self-published book which is currently free on Amazon is ranking fairly high at the moment is not terribly concincing to this Kindle owner; a lot of us will download just about anything to check it out if/when it's free. LadyofShalott 02:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, very good points, although, just to clarify, the book is highly ranked on Amazon's "free book" list. There are incredible numbers of free books on Amazon, so for a book to reach Bestseller status in its category means it is being downloaded significantly more than all of those other free eBooks. Of course, we have no way of knowing how many people are actually reading what they download from Amazon, probably, as you allude to, it is only a small fraction, but the same ratio probably applies to all free eBooks. That the book is self-published does not immediately disqualify it from being mentioned on the Wikipedia page for Siduri. According to Wikipedia's policy for using self-published sources: "Self-published sources may not be used for any claims about living people, except for claims made by the author about himself (or herself)." In this case Peter Dyr is making a claim about himself, that he believes in and follows the teachings of Siduri. I was unable to find any published book on Siduri on any of the eBook sites I use (Amazon, Kobo, Sony and iBooks), in fact, tellingly, when I typed "Siduri" into the search box of every site Dyr's book always came up first. Perhaps I am missing something important, I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and your expertise on this matter is much appreciated. Is there a specific reason why we can not include Dyr's self-published book on the page about Siduri, when the claims he is making are about himself, no other published book covers the material at hand and by all quantifiable measurements (that are publicly available) the book is relatively popular? 76.174.24.136 (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)George[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#A7) by INeverCry (talk · contribs)

Quinn Bard

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

Non-notable actor. A single role in a small independent film, and an unverified appearance in a local production of a play that may or may not make it to Broadway. Too soon for this bio. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN individual. reddogsix (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

considering you haven't even seen the movie Bluebird your argument is pure speculation. You have no idea what he does, how much he does, etc. In fact he is still in the movie at the end of the film in a very poignant scene. He is also noted as CREDITED in IMDB, actors who do not play a significant role are not credited, they appear as "rest of cast" -- by your 'assumption" if he were not important he would be "rest of cast" -- considering you havent seen the movie, your argument is mute and pure speculation. Since the movie premieres tonight, not enough media attention has been given and reviews and more information will be added as it appears in the press. Per Wiki " Comments should concentrate on facts that are verifiable from reliable sources." by your 'assumption" if he were not important he would be "rest of cast" -- considering you haven't seen the movie, your argument is based on your opinion as you do not know how significant his role is, you are guessing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.93.235 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct -- my assumptions about Bard's role in the film are speculation because I have not seen the film. That is beside the point, however. The point is that there is no indication of any coverage of Bard in any reliable source. The sources mentioned in the Bluebird article do not mention Bard at all, nor does the UMaine article about Johnny Baseball. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then by your argument IMDb is not credible? IMDb uses a system whereby significant roles are called "credited" any other type of role is rest of cast." You cant have one rule when it suits you then switch it when it does not facilitate your argument. This movie releases tonight, thus far all that is out there is what the publicity department has released. You are using your assumptions when you feel like it, then switching it up to something else when you point is refuted. Bottom line, you can't assume anything, citations and valid info has been provided to substantiate this page.

You say "non notable" as your argument for delietion, IMDb states otherwise, the rest is pure speculation on your part and "not wanting to be wrong."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.93.235 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FIne. Whatever. delete it, at the end of the day wikepedia just lost more hits from people searching for info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.93.235 (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"New Environmentalist"

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)

Does not appear to be notable - searches only turn up the subject's own webpage, no sources to prove assertion of notability. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 12:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 12:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability is not a reason for deletion (it needs to declare why it's important or significant) however I say delete as it ain't got any secondary sources.--Laun chba ller 12:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Launchballer: ??? If something isn't notable, it should not have an article. That's a perfect reason for deletion... @hmssolent: why an AfD? Why not save everybody time with an A7 or, if need be, a PROD? --Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but as the creator made several assertions of notability, it no longer qualified for A7. Since the creator is entitled to remove the PROD tag as a means of contesting deletion, I've posted it here. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It isn't. Notability is one stage further than importance/significance.--Laun chba ller 16:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Importance/significance" has indeed no 1:1 relationship with notability and we don't judge in an AFD whether something is important/significant. What we judge is notability and if that is missing, we delete, regardless of importznce/significance. Non-notability is a very good reason to delete something. --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to show notability. Unless they are included the article is, in effect, just a link to the society's website. Borock (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Piece is now actually titled New Environmentalist Society — an organization which returns all of 23 hits in a Google search for the exact phrase, none of which seem to count to GNG. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete @hmssolent - additional sources attached to show notability and involvement with online petition from Viva! : http://www.viva.org.uk/huntingban/nikon/ also part of a nationwide campaign with People & Planet: http://peopleandplanet.org/dl/green-is-working-2012.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eohippus99 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC) — Eohippus99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment @Launchballer: Additional external source to show membership of SCC Coalition http://www.stopclimatechaos.org/members?id=41#41. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifedrifter (talk • contribs) 10:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC) — Lifedrifter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- @Lifedrifter: One of those is the same as a ref which already exists, and it being signatory to a letter adds nothing to the article. For the time being, format the rest of the references in the same way I have and let me know afterwards.--Laun chba ller 12:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Launchballer: Hi, I've done the changes as suggested. Hope this is satisfactory and complies with the rules. Wikipedia is a learning process for me so far, fun as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifedrifter (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added more references as Launchballer suggested. Please have a look. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifedrifter (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's brilliant! Okay, keep.--Laun chba ller 14:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although impressive-looking, none of the added references are what I would call independent references (and several don't look like they would be reliable sources either), with the exception of course of Business Week. Unfortunately, the latter article doesn't even mention "New Environmentalist". Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep at least three of the UK references that mention "new environmentalist" are reliable sources such as Viva!,Stop Climate Chaos&Tourism Concern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.47.190 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC) — 86.24.47.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ some references are not in English but most are independent and reliable, i.e. registered UK charities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eohippus99 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One vote per customer, please. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keepappears to be a notable NGO with decent references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaghne (talk • contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Vagne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 (created in violation of a block or ban), A10 (duplicate of existing article). Article created by an obvious sock of an editor indef'd for copyvio. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of Bangladesh Air Force

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

Unsourced list of aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force. Very few sources/references given, inline or other, and all reflinks I checked returned a "404". All in all it is a very unencyclopaedic list more at home on a fan forum than on WP. It is a companion to the equally unsourced Equipment of Bangladesh Army, created by the same editor. Thomas.W (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 12:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Lack of sources" is not a valid argument for having an article deleted. At Wikipedia, it seems to be standard to list aircraft/vessels/vehicles operated by the armed forces of a country. I cannot see why this should fall under WP:FANCRUFT or WP:LISTCRUFT.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative to deletion would be moving the article to the creator's sandbox, to be returned to article space only if and when everything is properly sourced, with reliable sources. Thomas.W (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force per WP:ATD-M. Warden (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per Colonel Warden. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Judging by the page history of that article the new article seems to be nothing more than a content fork of List of aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force, created just after unsuccesful attempts had been made to introduce unsourced info etc into the older article. Thomas.W (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having pointed it out. Obviously, I was too quick with my earlier judgement. I have to admit that I didn't check the page history, and had been unaware that List of aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force already exists. In this new light, I suggest the article be deleted.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should have been CSD G5 as it looks like the work of a sock of blocked (for copyright violation) User:Sylheti Soldier it would also qualify for CSD A10 as well. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In that case that would also apply to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Equipment_of_Bangladesh_Army since it was created by the same user account as this article, and has the same history. Thomas.W (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student Research Training Program

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

No indication of notability, quick search didn't find anything. (PROD was declined on technicality as I failed to provide a reason - either Twinkle bug or incompetence, although has been seconded by DGG - see history) Widefox; talk 12:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider this WP:SNOW. Widefox; talk 13:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of independent notability, and notability can't be inherited from the parent university. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability is established. --Cold Season (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 (created in violation of a block or ban), A10 (duplicate of existing article). Article created by an obvious sock of an editor indef'd for copyvio. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment of Bangladesh Army

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

Unsourced list of equipment of the Bangladesh Army. Very few sources/references given, inline or other, and the few that are listed are either dead links or lead to pages that don't support the inflated claims and numbers in the article. All in all it is a very unencyclopaedic list more at home on a fan forum than on WP. Thomas.W (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added info: It is a companion to the equally unsourced Aircraft of Bangladesh Air Force, created by the same user. An article that has now also been listed at AfD. Thomas.W (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative to deletion would be moving the article to the creator's sandbox, to be returned to article space only if and when everything is properly sourced, with reliable sources. Thomas.W (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 12:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Equipment of the Bangladesh Army per WP:ATD-M. Warden (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Judging by the page history of that article the new article seems to be nothing more than a content fork of Equipment of the Bangladesh Army, created after unsuccesful attempts had been made to introduce unsourced info etc into that article. Thomas.W (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, no delete !votes, nomination withdrawn. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MarkLogic

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

No independent third-party sources - the third-party sources listed are reprints of press releases; no evidence of notability; reads like an advertisement. David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sigh. I really wanted to !vote delete based on the paucity of suitable sources and the poor quality of the article, which does indeed read like a press release. But we base notability not on the sources already cited but on those available, even if they are not yet cited. Googling turned up a whole book on MarkLogic plus mentions in other books, e.g., here and here. I really have no choice but to !vote to keep. Msnicki (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Crikey, how did I miss that. OK, just a crappy article then. Sigh, it's been there since 2005 and has sucked in every revision - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from original nominator per Msnicki. Now can someone please make the article not suck? - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Askeet

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

can't find any relevant coverage - tagged for notability since november 2009 _nonsense ferret 19:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking 3rd party references to establish notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Heether

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. Has been released by the Angels. Unlikely to make the show and he shows no evidence of meeting GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was once added to a 40-man roster, but that's about it. No widespread coverage. Past consensus that minor league all-stars should be notable has been reversed since the last AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted above, has never played in the majors - nothing else here that would indicate notability. Nwlaw63 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waste plastic extruder

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

No assertion of notability – Richard BB 15:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is really only a link to an Appropedia article and does not meet WP:N. - Pmedema (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I took a look at the Appropedia article and despite the substantial "literature review" I don't see there is enough to support notability. Checking google and google scholar reinforce this. Garamond Lethet c 20:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly with merger of material currently at RecycleBot article. See also RecycleBot and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RecycleBot. There is at least one needed, useful article between this "Waste plastic extruder" and the "RecycleBot" articles. Any which way, this AFD should be considered and closed together with the AFD on RecycleBot. --do ncr am 18:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Remove own erroneous vote)Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Batboys (talk · contribs) has never been blocked at all, let alone indefinitely. Uncle G (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad-Dan Perianu

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

Absolutely no independent coverage suggests this individual may meet the criteria set out at WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST. One (very) passing mention isn't enough.

And I know autobiographies are permitted, but I cannot fail to note that this article is the only contribution of its creator, called, of course, Perianu. Perhaps he should read WP:NOTLINKEDIN. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was also unable to find any independent sources when I tagged for notability. I had hoped that the original contributor, having seen the tag, might be able to point us to some press he has received, but that does not appear to have happened. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WikiDan. No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Meade

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

Non notable minor league baseball player who is in the independent leagues and thus unlikely to make the Majors. Article also lacks sources and seems to also have conflict of interest issues. Spanneraol (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source 1: "Aaron Meade Himself". That's funny. I see real coverage in the Springfield News Leader [17][18] but no other publication, so he doesn't have enough coverage to establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Plateau

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

unable to establish this as Wikipedia-notable/deserving of an article Lachlan Foley 05:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmade Bed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's the same case as it was here. (I couldn't copy the above comment, so...) smtchahal^(talk) 11:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unmade Bed

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

unable to establish this as Wikipedia-notable/deserving of an article Lachlan Foley 05:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a single article about a band's single without a single source. Fails WP:GNG, not to mention WP:NMG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable song. I can't find the topic anywhere at all other than on Wikipedia itself. smtchahal^(talk) 11:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement on whether the sources are sufficient for notability. Per WP:DELPRO, this defaults to delete in BLP cases where the subject has requested deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene A. Eilers Koenig

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

Someone created this Wikipedia entry without my permission. I do not wish to be in Wikipedia. Period. Please remove my entry. I have no desire to be included in Wikipedia. Thank you. Marlene A. Eilers Koenig (Mrs.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlenekoenig (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strictly looking at the merits of the article, it fails WP:GNG. The sources do not cover the subject in depth. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not because of the subject's request, but because of the article's failure to meet the general notability guideline as mentioned above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just please remove it .. I did not ask for a Wikipedia entry. There is more information on my book jackets ...but I do not wish to be associated with this site. My students are not permitted to use Wikipedia ... and I do not wish to included. Remove me NOW. No debate. I have the right to be excluded, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlenekoenig (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As discussed, a subject doesn't have a right to demand that she's not included because she doesn't like Wikipedia, Wikipedia doesn't need her permission, and there will be a discussion here. There are a lot of links to the article, which suggest that she's being used as a WP:SOURCE. As such, it may be worthwhile to help explain the source, especially if the source is her blog. A widely published and cited author, I'd lean towards keep actually. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Google search indicated her work was cited in some 100 articles or more (biographies of royals) before the biography was written, not all are linked to the article. Her book Queen Victoria's Descendants from 1987 is the standard reference on this topic and widely used as a source on the genealogy of the British Royal Family. She has coverage in third party sources, most recently[19]. I think she clearly meets the criteria and the article would be useful especially because so many articles cite her work. The only reason to delete the article would be her wish to have it deleted. On the other hand, if you publish books and become an established expert on some topic, you will often have to accept that there is coverage of you in other media (eg., she probably didnt ask the individuals covered in her books for permission to include them either). Vinson wese (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She is also cited in many books by other authors in her subject area, royal genealogy, as indicated by a Google book search (note that she was formerly known as Marlene Eilers only). Many of those books are also well-known books by well-known authors. Works citing her include Helen Rappaport's biography of Queen Victoria, the Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy, Burke's royal families of the world, works by Greg King (author), etc. etc. She is a well-known figure internationally in royal genealogy. Vinson wese (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently well-known as an author that this is not in the borderline zone. If there is some special reason for deleting, it hasn't been mentioned. The reason for not filling these requests, is that otherwise we'd be the encyclopedia of those who want publicity, which would make us not an encyclopedia, but a advertising site. DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Fails WP:GNG. And not simply because the subject asks for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. As usual, the subject's own appraisal of notability is irrelevant. Qworty (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After some hesitation given the subject's desire not to have an article, I have to vote keep, because explaining a source used as such in over 100 Wikipedia articles with several published books that are widely used references seems more important than a subject's desire not be the subject of coverage. Someone who publishes books need to accept that they may be persons of some public interest relating to their publications/publication history. As pointed out by others, being opposed to the Wikipedia project is not a valid reason. Vinson wese (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to wonder whether the subject gives the people that she writes about in her books a veto over their publication. It's rather surprising how many of the people who come here demanding that they shouldn't be written about on Wikipedia are themselves authors or journalists who write about other people. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do we have any evidence that the person making the deletion request is in fact Marlene A. Eilers Koenig? Normally, these types of requests are vetted through OTRS. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been corresponding with the Marlene through OTRS and provided her with AfD as a possible option to remove the article at her request. The ticket can be viewed here: 2013040910013929. Mike V • Talk 02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person has written notable works. We do not delete articles just because the subject wants us to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uberaccount (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the merits of the subject per Vinson's discussion Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only actual bio source is a bio blurb of the sort that tends to be supplied by the subject. This is not enough for WP:BLP. (Arguably, this should have been summarily deleted.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For multiple reasons. As David Gerard mentions, I don't see a substantial biography on this person. I also fail to see which criteria this subject meets under WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. @John Pack Lambert - re "This person has written notable works" - If that's so, why don't any of her works have WP articles? NickCT (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like clear notability, with RS pointing towards that fact. Besides, her prominent presence within scholarship makes it all the more important that we have an article about her, Sadads (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latency Optimizer

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

Advert-like article that is not supported by any clear reliable sources; currently most if not all the sources cited in the article are download links and forum posts, which obviously fail to meet WP:RS. Upon further inspection, of all the sources, only one source seems to at least scrap past the WP:RS requirements, and that is the Softpedia review. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 10:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More spam from Voidz. Sourcing is a mix of primary, pr and download sites. no coverage from independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALAK (airline)

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

Yes, this article indeed survives in this abysmal shape since 2006. I cannot find anything that would establish notability per WP:CORP, no coverage at all. --FoxyOrange (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-scheduled minor charter carrier out of Moscow in the '90s, with almost no mention in any extant sources. The closest to "coverage" that I can find is mention of a partnership with also-defunct Air Saravi to operate a Tupolev Tu-134 in Slovakia. But that's not notability, at all. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

!? So far, nobody has voiced any arguments for the article to be kept.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, criteria G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) and A7 (No indication of importance). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco Film Production

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

spam from Voidz. non notable company, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of non mentions, pr and non reliable sources. I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelhay Elanbassi

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

spam from Voidz. non notable producer, lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of pr and non reliable sources. I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources to establish notability. The given sources are unreliable and mention the subject's business more than the subject: one by a business that represents the subject's company, one self-published entry in a business listing web site and one by the subject's company web site. This is a vanity article posted by an editor for hire. Joja lozzo 19:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly fails WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete: about as blatant an advertisement as I have seen in Wikipedia for quite a while. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inartmedia

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

spam from Voidz. non notable company, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of pr and non reliable sources. I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Kripsy

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

spam from Voidz. non notable rapper/footballer. awards are not major. football team is a Dubai Amateur League team from Middlesex University. rap career is a pair of mixtapes lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of shop, pr and non reliable sources. I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable; none of the sources cited meet WP:RS requirements. As mentioned, the awards he has won are not notable, the "TUSH" awards doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page and its webpage looks amateur and frankly broken. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 11:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable as a footballer, not notable as a musician, not notable as anything. Giant Snowman 19:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY as a footballer, fails WP:MUSICBIO as a musician, and fails the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Manila. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Yacht Club

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

Consistency with reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puerto Galera Yacht Club Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 18. Snotbot t • c » 08:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manila, Philippines; the subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, however I have not found any significant coverage of the subject that gives in-depth focus on the organization. Therefore, the subject appears to fail WP:GNG & WP:ORG. That being said it can be argued that the subject maybe considered by some locally notable, thus my solution is to convert the article into a redirect. If the article receives significant coverage in the future, it can be rewritten/restored using those non-primary reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:LOCAL applies for reasoning for a redirect rather than an outright deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied as per below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Moore Jr

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

The subject barely meets the notability guidelines for musicians and a large portion of the article appears to simply promote him. Most of the sources cited confirms his existence but they fail to mention why he is notable from an independent point of view. He's had 1 album reach 70th on the charts, however that was 11 years ago. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 07:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Moore Jr is still a major brand influencer in the USofA and is still notable among many Young Adults to individuals in their 30s. Moore maintains over 50,000 followers on twitter and has a Klout Score of 66. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaylenbledsoe (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable third party sources that can verify his notability? Specifically, sources that can probably save this article include newspaper extracts, books, song reviews by notable media organisations or critics. Twitter followers and Facebook likes are not indicators of one's notability on Wikipedia, there has to be a least several hundreds of thousands of people on Twitter with more than 50,000 followers and unfortunately Wikipedia can not provide each and one of them with an individual article entry. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 13:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - User:Scottgramble moved the article from the main article space to his own user space, hence this AfD can be closed. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 05:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete: CSD G7 "Author requests deletion".

Giovanni Zanalda

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

Non-notable professor, completely unsourced. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 07:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find evidence he meets WP:PROF or other WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Cure discography. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cure Live in Japan

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

unable to establish as Wikipedia-notable/deserving of an article Lachlan Foley 06:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be worth searching the Japanese version of Google to see if there is any coverage. I'm not seeing any Google Books results, and while I see a handful of Google News results (in the Archives), they are passing mentions. At the very least, we should redirect this topic to The Cure and ensure a brief summary of this video. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse a merge to The Cure discography per the other editors below. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, merge to The Cure discography - adding the bulk of the opening sentence as a note there against this release would add useful information to that article. --Michig (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Cure discography - the notability is simply not there. Not enough significant coverage. A mention in the discography section should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Cure discography. As above, there is not sufficient in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Cure discography per above. No enough coverage to have an own article. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roof cleaning

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

A dedicated article on this is not justified. It's just cleaning, that is done on roof and it is NOT something extensive enough to warrant an article. The article consists of self-explanatory things supported with news reports so that article can exist to support questionable external links and citations. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There could be an article, but none of the sources cover the topic itself -- just small aspects of it. Borock (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is not justified because there are obvious alternatives to deletion per WP:BEFORE. These include expansion of the article by reference to readily available sources such as Cleaning Roofs. And WP:INSPECTOR seems especially relevant in this case... Warden (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Doesn't work in this case. The article's been up for over 2 years. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 20:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your counterargument is fallacious. The length of time that an article exists without improvement does not demonstrate unimprovability. Unimprovability is demonstrated by researching the subject and coming up empty handed. What research have you done to find documentation of the subject, and what have you come up with? Compare your answer with the answers of Colonel Warden and Mark viking here. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Curious to see if anyone will add anything to the article that would differentiate this type of cleaning to any other type of cleaning job. However, it's been 2 years. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 20:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a bit of prose and two more reliable sources verifying the prose. In the article references, the Miami Herald refs, the Journal of Phycology ref, the Atmospheric Environment journal ref and the IEEE conference ref are all reliable sources; the last two are in depth. There are also sources out there discussing roof cleaning and its effect on the use of roofs as water catchments in dry areas, and of course, lots of domestic roof cleaning sources such as the one Warden pointed out. Cleaning snow off roofs is another important issue in the high latitudes. The presence of multiple reliable sources shows that the topic is notable. While the article could be a spam target, possible spam suggests editing the article, not deleting it. A notable topic, per WP:GNG and no insurmountable problems with the article, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, lead to a keep recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you notice unusual amount of references to de Marne, Henri. ? It looks like this page was setup to promote his consulting service. Multiple reliable sources are present, therefore it is notable is a flawed argument. There are multiple reliable sources detailing how to wash glassware, cleaning lens, sterilizing dental tools, etc yet these topics don't necessarily deserve its own article Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - In AfD these days, notability is based on whether a topic meets notability guidelines, such as WP:GNG. Saying that a topic does not deserve an article when notability tests say otherwise implies that some other reason overrides notability. But I don't see such a reason. For instance, claiming that the topic is too trivial would simply a personal opinion and probably an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We do have articles on window cleaner, exterior cleaning, and chimney sweep, too, all important tasks and respectable professions. --Mark viking (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it seems like a strange article subject, it seems to be obviously notable (roof cleaning as a subject is dealt with in numerous pieces online and in print). Beyond that, it doesn't seem any more trivial than the article on window cleaning, which deals with many of the same aspects of its topic as this article does for roof cleaning, and which has never faced a deletion discussion. Roof cleaning seems to have its own distinctive purposes and tools, which sets it apart as a unique field in maintenance. The page probably needs work and expansion, but deletion seems too drastic a step. Chri$topher 22:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant subject, with specialized techniques and a specialized literature. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denzell Perryman

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

He fails Wikipedia:Notability. Has not played one game professionally. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. I agree that the subject has not played professionally, but that is only one measure of many for establishing notability. Barring that, I took a look at WP:GNG to see if I could find significant coverage of the individual in reliable third party sources. While a basic websearch does turn up oodles of hits for the individual, from what I could tell most were fan blog sites. I found only basic passing mentions of the subject in a few news sources. It is possible that the individual could achieve notability in the future (perhaps in just a few months) so if the article creator or some other enthusiastic editor would agree to userfy the article, that's my preferred choice. Barring that, Delete is the option to choose. But to summarize, college football athletes can achieve notability without playing professionally. This one has yet to make that mark.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless his 2011 Freshman All-American award came from a major, recognized group and that could achieve notability. I found no evidence of that in my search, but Artoo does admit that his own range is far too weak to abandon all hope.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Paul's comment immediately above. This is a young college football player of marginal notability. Does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of either WP:NGRIDIRON because he has not played in a regular season professional game, or WP:NCOLLATH because he has not won a major college sports award. Therefore, the subject must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, and I don't see in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Delete, but userfy content upon request of article creator; he may prove notable during his remaining college eligibility. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pythia (band)

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

I'm not finding substantial coverage of this band in reliable sources (WP:GNG). Mostly blogs, announcements, and show dates, which doesn't do much for WP:BAND, either. JFHJr (㊟) 01:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Amazon, their latest album, The Serpent's Curse is ranked 47,776, in their sales chart - not a particularly stunning achievement! [20] InviolataIngenue (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And if there are noteworthy achievements reported, I'd hope to see something more reliable than Amazon, a sales website. JFHJr (㊟) 16:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND, being 47,776th is not a stellar achievement at all. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaru Sundarimaarude Katha

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILMS or WP:GNG - seems to be WP:TOOSOON Boleyn (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article about an unreleased film; fails WP:NFF. AllyD (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medusa society

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

I am unable to find any reference to this society on the Trinity College website or on Google generally. Search for "Medusa Society"+Trinity comes up with one relevant result, mentioning that someone was a member. The books that are used as sources are of mainly local interest, which casts doubt on this organization's notability. Proposed deletion contested. ... discospinster _talk 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources are the books, which are published by the university itself, and thus do not demonstrate notability. No other sources means that the article itself is not notable, per nom. Richard Ye^talk 08:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Art_Olivier#Operation_Terror. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Terror

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

I have searched for reliable sources on this film and I have found no significant discussion of the film. Coverage seems limited almost entirely to official sources or blogs, usually conspiracist blogs The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:FILM seems to suggest that being a winner at the International Movie Awards, and possibly the other awards mentioned, may be significant. I came across this article after hearing a half-hour interview with the producer on a public radio station, so I'd say broadcast coverage isn't insignificant even if print coverage is hard to find. ~Amatulić (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFILM, which I presume is what you meant, talks about "major awards" and I can find no indication that the "International Movie Awards" are that significant.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant WP:NFILM. And I'm the first to admit I have no idea of what awards are significant for independent films. Pop culture isn't on my radar most of the time. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a new film that hasn't reached the notability threshold of coverage at this time. The award is suspect to me: impossible to verify, since the awards web page doesn't list their own winners, nominees or entrants. Perhaps all entries that paid the entry fee won? That page hasn't updated their entry deadline since 2012. However, if it is in fact the first dramatization of truther theory, that is something not covered by the guidelines that personally I wouldn't ignore. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the first dramatization of a truther theory. There have been several older ones that have gotten much more attention. None of them have articles as far as I know, though there is at least one that I believe to be notable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but now we are in that strange Wikipedia position where no source is likely to say that the other source is wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Wikipedia relies upon the GNG for determining whether or not a festival is notable or not, but as this fairly new film is still screening at festivals and its future history is yet unwrit, why not Incubate this for a while and see what comes forward if/when it gains more attention? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you're wrong, but is it still screening? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their website shows it as being "official selection" to screen in October at the 2013 Baghdad International Film Festival.[21] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order for a film to meet this particular clause of WP:NFILM, the screening at a film festival must be at least 5 years after its release. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ AQFK: You may be misunderstanding me. I do not assert that the film meets a clause of WP:NF#Other evidence of notability... a clause set for something being considered historical for screening five years after initial release (check my essay). I am instead offering a conjecture that because it is STILL screening, coverage might be expected and that incubation out-of-mainspace is an option that allows continued and collaborative editing until WP:NF is a lock. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it IS still screening, I am fine with it being userfied back to its author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Art_Olivier#Operation_Terror. I've added a bit about the film to Olivier's article and since he wrote and produced the film, it'd be a reasonable enough redirect to his article. It is possible that it might gain further coverage, so leaving it with the history intact would be a viable option and we could always userfy a copy to the original author if they showed interest. I'm not terribly optimistic about it gaining coverage, but stranger things have happened with films. In any case, the section on Olivier's page has the most important info, such as the release date, basic premise, and awards/noms. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Art Olivier per work performed by Tokyogirl79 as a suitable solution until such time(if ever) the film ever receives the media attention to merit a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LiveRebel

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

Non notable software product which fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account as a part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia. see Spam Case. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.

I am also nominating the following related Spam campaign page:

Hu12 (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article lacking 3rd party references to establish notability; created by an SPA as promotional, per nom. Dialectric (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. As blatant promotion — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Rusi

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

BLP. No clear notability. Badly formatted and written. Reads like an advertisement. Also appears to be written by the individual. Kumioko (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have speedy deleted this as it reads entirely like an advertisement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have too but I recently got beat up over CSD. Thanks to some of our fellow users I am extremely gun shy about submitting CSD's. Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete With zero references, this is a BLP violation and needs to be speedy deleted. IMO it also fails WP:OR and WP:PROMOTE (part of WP:NOT). Notability cannot be known without evidence, and there is no evidence that this topic is or is not notable. Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: No reliable sources. Patent self-promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Polack

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

Rejected PROD. However the concerns have not been addressed by the bombardment of references - this driver fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:NMOTORSPORT, and I don't believe he passes WP:GNG either. The claim of being 'CASCAR Rookie of the Year' leaves out the fact that it was the CASCAR Western Series a regional, not-fully-professional series, not the CASCAR Super Series (which would pass WP:NMOTORSPORT), and thus he doesn't pass the sporting notability requirements; looking at the references that were added when the PROD tag was removed, one was a complete duplicate of another, and two more were merely name-drops, which I have removed; of the remaining references, 1 is a name-drop, 2 appears to be a primary source, 3 is a discussion board profile(!), 4 is a wiki, and 5 was summarily rejected at RSN. None of the external links establish notability either. Googling turns up no reliable sources; gNews only turns up a name-drop, while gBooks is zilch. Conclusion: WP:TOOSOON at best. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the references given proclaims itself to be a press release, and none of the others does more than include Shaun Polack in a list, or give a few brief biographical details, quite apart from issues about the nature of the sources and whether they are reliable. The only sources I managed to find via Google that clearly refer to thisShaun Polack are such things a Twitter, FaceBook, LinkedIn, MySpace, this Wikipedia article, etc etc: in fact exactly the sort of coverage I would expect to find for someone who is not notable, but has spent a lot of effort trying to create as wide a web presence as possible, including having a Wikipedia article created. (The article was created by an account which shows every sign of being a professional promoter, who has a history of creating numerous unsuitable articles and adding dubious or even downright fake references to give a spurious impression of notability.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article creator has now been indef'd for spamming and socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fudge, Kentucky

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

Its utter nonsense, has no GNIS entry in Fulton and the External links were a Sesame Street locatorm with Grover pointing to nowhere and a 380 page soil survey with NO word, Fudge in it Coal town guy (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - about the closest thing that seems to exist in the way of a source is a comment on this blog post calling it a hoax. Also, this person smelled something fishy, but only edited the article. Chris857 (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only "sources" refer to the Wikipedia article itself, and it looks like a hoax. Ansh666 03:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to be found; there's nothing in the GNIS, nothing on maps, no book sources, and nothing on the internet but a few forums claiming this is a hoax. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think there is an excellent chance that this was a named town in Kentucky, which would imply a keep, if confirmed, but I am not finding anything which positively confirms its existence. Delete without prejudice to recreation if sourcing confirming the town's existence later materializes. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even if this exists (which is doubtful given this line from in the article: "As of July, 2011, no photos of this location are available online, nor have any coordinates been proposed."), would it meet notability standards? I know the unincorporated communities of Fulton County all have their own articles for some reason, but those are current and this was according to the article abandoned after the 1860s as more or less uninhabitable (which makes it all the less likely as well). Ansh666 21:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment - I created the artiles for the unincorporated communities today. ALL of them. Thery are notable because some had post offices which are not documented, AND it fulfills the Wiki function of being a Gazeteer(sp?) if you will. The reason I did that, was NOBODY else was, and its fun, ever been to Fulton County? The reason, Fudge has to go, as that it promotes the stereotype of an isolated Kentucky community where the residents watch sports casts and yuck it up with Snuffy Smith on their porches. NOT my fault we had 3 wiki projects thinking that Grover pointing to a map location ala the Sesame Street locator was OK. SORRY. Odd how the other staes do not attract scrutiny on this levelCoal town guy (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a pretty clear case of WP:HOAX. Perhaps there was previously a community named Fudge, but it is not verifiable in any way. TB randley 04:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jnana Prabodhini Yuvak vibhag

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

It does not read well, and makes no effort to ascertain any notability. Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unrecognised organisation/body of a school. Does not meet WP:ORG. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This society is already covered in a section of the school article (though equally unreferenced there), so the long-proposed merge has effectively already occurred. No evidence of any distinct notability. AllyD (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like other organizations, this society does not inherit any notability from its parent organization (in this case, the school). MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sajad H Hamdani

Sajad H Hamdani is [[WP:PERMAORPHAN|Permanent WP:Orphan since January 2011. Terribly written article, although typical of the vanity gumpf that seems to be written by Indians in Wikipedia, remove that and it's "he's an artist" and teacher at the Institute of Music and Fine Arts, Srinagar which itself has no article, and the references are all rubbish too. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The article text just indicates that the subject completed a degree and has a job. The WP:ARTIST criteria require much more than that, and I have found no evidence that ths person meets these. AllyD (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dead links, no sources found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The subject has a relatively large digital footprint in terms of social media, which are also listed here on the page. It could possibly be a vanity page -thus a violation of WP:ADVERT if I am not mistaken. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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