Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 August	28 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agroindustrial Pomalca

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large Peruvian sugar company with thousands of employees and major land holdings. Plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and historical Peruvian sugar company. Plenty of sources on line and elsewhere, as there should be, about this sugar company. It's not the largest, but it expanded out of an historical Peruvian sugar plantation in the 19th century; it's location iw well known, and it has history from the collectivization and later re-privitization movements in Peru, it is an exporter of sugar, it has other agricultural products, and is it known for being a modern factory with some leading edge experiments in Peruvian agriculture. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:59, 5 September 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Índice General de la Bolsa de Valores de Lima

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main index of nation's stock exchange. Manifestly notable. A merge to the article on the exchange might be worthwhile to consider. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merger might be the best alternative, with redirects from this URL. Can you do it?--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about the well established index for the Lima Stock Exchange and should be kept. With reliable sources in English and perhaps in Spanish, the index and the stock exchange are notable for this South American developing country.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:23, 29 August 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minera Autlan

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory search of Google News produced a wealth of recent Spanish-language articles from a variety of independent sources. I personally cannot read Spanish, so perhaps it would be best if we had someone who is fluent look this one over to double check, but the company appears to easily meet WP:GNG. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:51, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable entity coverd substantially in numerous reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:16, 28 August 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. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atacocha

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with perhaps a move to rename the article Compania Minera Atacocha, they are covered in international news multiple times here and here for example. This needs to be looked at by a Spanish-speaking editor. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable company covered substantially in reliable sources. I have moved as suggested above. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:56, 28 August 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. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M.video

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG with gusto. I added a ref. -- Y not? 20:24, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Y not and noms lack of efforts in looking for sources for these highly notable companies. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:49, 28 August 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 main, merge/redirect others. Keep the main article, merge the 2 year articles into the main. Several of the keep votes present no valid reasons for keeping, but the delete votes aren't all that much stronger. The clearest result I can see is that there probably is an underlying, notable topic, but that there isn't necessarily enough for breakout articles on each year. As such, I'm going to redirect the year articles to the main article, and anyone who is interested can use the info in the history to merge the relevant (and sourced) bits to the main article Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pan American Junior Championship

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

This is junior field hockey tournament only. Only two articles about two editions are exist. Article aboud same-level competitions in other continents (such as EuroHockey Junior Nations Championship, Junior Africa Cup for Nations...) are extinct. Their qualities are very bad (they have little references, too many red links). These articles should be deleted speedy. Banhtrung1 (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fail to see why it meets notability. Plus no referenced information for any of the information provided. Caffeyw (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Little references doesn't mean it is not notable, no references also can't treat as not notable. --Aleen f1 16:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other confederations' tournaments are not extinct, they were not created yet. Why would be delete an article just because complimentary articles haven't been created yet? Articles are created gradually, if we eliminate the first ones of a specific subject then that subject mught not be ever developed. --M&m89 (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The reasons to delete those articles are rubbish, it is a good start. If same level of competitions in other continents not exist, doesn't mean you can't create it. Speedy keep --Aleen f1 16:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all into Pan American Junior Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There seems to be enough lasting coverage for a general article on this event. Technical 13 (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No real reason given why to delete. I get 4 hits on google news for "Pan American Junior Championship" among recent items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiruning (talk • contribs) 03:53, 11 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Westland

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

An article about the same person was deleted following a poorly-attended deletion discussion in 2010. The sources used on this version of the article do not appear to be of higher quality than the sources used earlier, but a new discussion seems more appropriate than speedy deletion as a recreation. gadfium 23:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)-gadfium 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Coverage is mainly either specialist interest publications or trivial mentions in major publications. I suspect there is COI as the article was created by an author who has had no other wiki involvement, particularly as the article was fully and properly created from scratch which suggests the editor has previous wiki experience under another/previous login. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or other evidence of notability as might satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are either WP:PRIMARY or trivial. Msnicki (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple articles including Computer World (x3), The Dominion Post, ResellerNews, Forbes. These are business papers, but he is a business person, to be expected. The question is if he is notable within the context of the project management industry. Notability is not inherited but Westland's company does seem well known, it was selected for "Red Herring Top 100 Award" for Asia Pacific for 2013 and won the "Deloitte Fast 50 Award" which means it's one of the 50 fastest growing Companies in NZ. Anyway - There is enough material in these sources to write a basic outline of Westland's career. Keep per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these sources support notability for the subject's company, ProjectManager.com. But notability is not inherited and none of these sources make more than a passing mention of the subject himself except as the company spokesperson. At best, these are trivial mentions. They are simply not sufficient to establish notability. (Btw, note that to check them, I had to fix the URLs for two of them.) Msnicki (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merge per discussion above. CEO of a notable company. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the guidelines do you rely on to indicate that being CEO of a notable company is enough to establish his notability? It is certainly not provided for in WP:ANYBIO. No matter how notable his company is, I think it still takes suitable sources to establish his notability. So far, I certainly haven't seen those sources. Just getting mentioned in a story about the company is not enough. Msnicki (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the company is notable, a combined article about this individual (the founder and CEO) and the company is the most appropriate outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "merge" is always an option, I suppose. But beyond just, "In 2008, he founded ProjectManager.com", how much of this individual's resume material masquerading as an article do you think is both worth saving and not already covered in the ProjectManager.com article? Msnicki (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an editing decision. Certainly some of it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per DerbyCountyinNZ - SimonLyall (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, but some content should be merged with ProjectManager.com. Schwede 66 02:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability comes also from his publications, not just through being CEO. The Project Life Cycle book was (imho) an important contribution to project management texts at the time. And through founding Method123, which was (is?) an innovative tool at the time. Have added a couple of extra references today which are hopefully more substantial. TomSlade123 (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — TomSlade123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Both of those sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE. One was a blog post of an interview with the subject (also making it WP:PRIMARY) and the other is a press release. Neither count toward notability and both have been deleted by User:Green Cardamom. Msnicki (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In a worst case scenario this should be merged not deleted. As someone who works in the project management business, I've read Jason's books and read the odd article. Not only this, he arguably created the best online project management program, in projectmanager.com. While I agree as above that he shouldn't inherit notability, if he created it, surely thats not inheriting? With him at the helm, the company also won a number of awards. Using some common sense a founder and current CEO isn't and wasn't a cog in the machine, it was his guidance that got the notable company where it is today. Surely that counts for something? Ramelot32 (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC) — Ramelot32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Arguments based on subjective importance WP:ILIKEIT or personal familiarity with the subject WP:IKNOWIT are termed arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. Further, notability not being inherited means that even if the subject did create a notable business or write a notable book, he cannot inherit notability from that; creating notable things doesn't make him notable according to our guidelines. What we look for here are reliable independent secondary sources that discuss the subject. So far as I can see, they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. Neutrality^talk 15:02, 6 September 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 G11 and A7. Peridon (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Crash

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and associated sub articles. reddogsix (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I could not find any substantive coverage about her. The article links to a mention in LA Weekly, which is minimal. I could not find anything at all at Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find sources covering her substantially (or at all). Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass our music guidelines... or any other guidelines either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is a pretty blatant spam article for her. I've tagged it as a speedy for its promotional tone. I just can't find anything to show that she's notable. I'd probably recommend that this maybe get salted, considering that this was deleted previously and re-added, as well as because someone has also tried to add some of Crash's work to Wikipedia. This suggests that someone will inevitably try to re-add this again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 30 August 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) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Football-Reference.com

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

promotional, can't find any RS that establish independent notability. Alexa rank doesn't cut it for RS. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please complete steps in WP:BEFORE, or at least click on the "news" link next time. I've added links in the article with a few of the many references found: Bloomberg Businessweek, ESPN, New York Times, and Forbes. Plus, with over 250 articles in Wikipedia that link to this page it should be worth keeping because of its reference value.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the really basic sports stats sites. Passes GNG through sources showing, I believe. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that policy? I'm unfamiliar with that rationale. here or on my talk page is fine. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are seeking what is called the General Notability Guideline which is often abbreviated WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think i was just a little confused at the "by sources showing" construction. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. As Carrite says, this is one of the most significant sports info sources. Sufficient sources now shown to pass GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I do find it a bit odd (and i've encountered this before) that my searches on google and google news don't turn up anything that i would recognize as significant (some ads, that's about it), but the links that get put up when I nominated this did. But that's another noticeboard. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the difference between searching http://www.google.com/ and http://news.google.com/ ... worth considering.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source discussion. — Cirt (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Combine This website does not seem to be anything more than contents aggregation with a lot of front-end links and thrive on search engine exposure. If you look at [1] this page, it looks pretty obvious just source data and upload them. I would just put everything under "SPORTS REFERENCE LLC", then re-direct over there and give it a paragraph or two that describe what the site does and cut out huff puff. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge In this case the articles are more functional separately. There are a large number of citation links from other articles to the other pages that each warrants its own page, much like multiple publications from the same publisher may warrant multiple pages. One page for the publisher, one for each notable publication.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 29 August 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. postdlf (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Gardens

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

Does not appear to be independently notable, either as a building or as a failed(?) construction project. Only references I could find are non-RS forums. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May have been notable if it was completed, but as is, there is nothing notable about the failed project. Superman7515 (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have not been able to find any RSes on this failed/on-hold construction project. Does not appear to be notable. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This 59 story building appears to have been what was ultimately built on the site. Clearly notable. ~~Keep~~ and update article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Better yet, merge to Dubai Marriott Harbour Hotel & Suites, about the building at the site. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

skyscraperpage, like skyscrapercity and all sites with user generated content, is not a reliable source. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no reliably sourced information to support the notability of this article. I'd also oppose merge to any other article given the complete lack of any sourcing to indicate the relationship between what was intended to be be built versus whatever happened to end up getting built on the site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 28 August 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Landenberg Junction, Delaware

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

Article fails to meet general notability standards, includes no references, lacks widespread reliable coverage, and does not meet the standards of WP:N, WP:NRVE, or WP:PLACE Superman7515 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - As the article is proposed to be improved as an unincorporated community and not a railroad junction.Superman7515 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the USGS (216133), Landenberg Junction is a U6 unincorporated community. Such places have been considered notable by editor consensus in the past. I have contacted the author before about citing sources. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article makes no claim to this being a community, but a "small railroad junction". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superman7515 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

That was an issue for editing as Dough4872 has demonstrated by fixing the article. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unincorporated communities, regardless of size, are notable enough for articles. Dough 48 72 00:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GNIS is a reliable source, and it states that Landenburg Junction is a populated place; in addition, according to the GNIS entry, the U.S. Census Bureau recognizes that Landenburg Junction is an unincorporated community. This book also discusses the community's railroad junction. As Wikipedia is a gazetteer per the five pillars, there is a long-standing precedent that all populated places are worthy of inclusion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:03, 28 August 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. No consensus for deletion. To merge, or not to merge, that may be discussed at the article talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faerie dragon

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

This topic does not establish independent notability, and it only details primary publication details. TTN (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant character in a major fictional series and game. A merge is certainly worth considering. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Candleabracadabra or merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, according to where consensus is tipping at the end. One thing is sure, with only primary sources the topic fails to establish independent notability and cannot be kept as such. Being a "significant character in a major fictional series" is not a notability criteria. Fictional characters are not exempt from our inclusion guideline for stand-alone articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters or appropriate dragon listing. Web Warlock (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Candleabracadabra and Boz. bd2412 T 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
any "per Candleabracadabra" !votes would need to be supported by third party sources to have any validity. Since there are not any in the article and a search failed to find any, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. without actual third party sources, the options are: delete or merge if there is an appropriate target. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per rationale above. Dungeons & Dragons is clearly a major fictional series and game. --Space simian (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the topic isn't Dungeons & Dragons, it's Faerie dragon. Per WP:NRVE, each topic has to establish its notability independently of the others, and for that a topic must have been covered in independent secondary sources. While merging has merits, there is no ground for keeping the article as it is.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. If you follow the news link under sources there is some magazine stories that talk about these. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this appears to be a more notable creature, with some outside coverage. It appears to be the basis for the creature of the same name in the Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne game, and it is described in detail in Farkas, Bart G. (2003). Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Expansion Set Official Strategy Guide. Brady Games. p. 33. ISBN 978-0744002621. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchiest (talk • contribs)
- Disagree, I can't see any outside coverage. Are you sure you've read the correct article ? Besides, Warcraft III is a primary source for the creature and the source you propose is first-party to this primary source. If you don't agree, then your Warcraft III source is completely unrelated to Faerie dragon as it appears in D&D (that's what the lead establishes) and it belongs at Faerie dragon (Warcraft III).Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Torchiest. Evidence of a creature originating in one game making it into another is evidence of real-world influence. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:00, 4 September 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 Battle Angel Alit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motorball

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

This topic does not establish notability, and it is mostly a collection of fictional details not pertaining to the real world. TTN (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not terribly sure about the wording of the second half of your rationale, but I do agree that this doesn't meet notability standards. A cursory search doesn't find any of the commentary that I would expect to find (sociologists love talking about sports and culture presented in dystopian fiction) that would make this notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Important plot element in notable series. The subject of a movie short. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that as a valid arguement. The question here is notability, specifically the notability of Motorball apart from that of the works it appears in. If the movie short is notable, Motorball can be discussed in the movie short, but it's important to distinguish that the sources would be covering the movie short, of which Motorball is an aspect, rather than Motorball itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the parent subject is notable, there is no valid deletion rationale. Whether to keep this content broken out or to mrege and redirect is an editing decision. Major plot elements and characters of fictional works can be retained. We're not running out of pages. If it's better covered in the main aritcle then so be it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Without secondary coverage establishing notability, retaining the topic as stand alone is out of question. However per WP:MERGE, discussing a merge at AfD is acceptable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The topic certainly deserves a mention in the main Battle Angel Alita article as an important part of the plot. Otherwise, with no significant coverage from secondary sources, this fails WP:GNG and shouldn't be a stand-alone article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Folken de Fanel. As the subject of the article has not been covered in enough reliable sources, at most any referenced/enyclopedic material can be incorporated into the parent article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I exported the full history over to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Motorball Dream Focus 20:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle Angel Alita. It was an important arc in the story, but there's no reason to have an article on such a non-notable topic. If someone can find critical commentary, it can be recreated, but I don't see any usable third party sources. Redirect or delete would be acceptable, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:16, 3 September 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. postdlf (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Hyde F.C. season

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

Season article for a club outside of The Football League that's not notable in my opinion. Previous consensus backs this up. JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous consensus here and here, amongst many others. If it's not a team in a fully-pro league (i.e. outside of the Football League in England) then it does not merit a season article. Giant Snowman 21:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GS, current consensus seems to have changed and Conference National is no longer thought notable enough to justify a season article for a club. Fenix down (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As this is only a Confernece North team, we should not be having season articles on it. The line should be drawn at League division II. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: Hyde are playing in the Conference Premier (fifth tier) in the 2013–14 season. And could you clarify what division you are referring to by 'League division II'? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nominator believes season-articles for clubs playing below the fourth tier are not notable, while I think the cut-off point is the fifth tier. Fortunately, this article is about a club that plays at the sixth' tier, so it can easily be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Season articles should only be allowed for clubs in fully pro leagues. Number 5 7 23:00, 1 September 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 Top Model of The World 2010. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xeniya Lamber

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

Biography of a Ukrainian fashion model that shows no indications of notability. A top three finish in Top Model of The World 2010 and a gig modeling for a fashion house. No significant coverage to be found anywhere. The Top Model thing might be notable, in which case a redirect might be in order, but the article author has already undone that change. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following comment from Osykov (talk · contribs) was added to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Xeniya Lamber. It is transcluded here to be part of the overall dialog. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She is also actress with imdb record. Referenced movie is famous enough to have it's own article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_House_on_Haunted_Hill I believe that her page is covered by wikipedia criterias described on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osykov (talk • contribs)

Not everybody acting in a notable film is notable: many films have large numbers of insignificant, minor roles in them. As for having a record at IMDb, virtually anyone who has ever taken any part whatever in any commercial film qualifies, even a very minor role in a totally obscure and non-notable film. IMDb is no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An actress with a single minor role in one movie. That hardly meets the criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But isnt overall notability covered by these criterias and she deserves just a bit more than just a redirect to Top World Model page?
Comment Overall notability, as defined in WP:BIO and WP:GNG is defined by significant coverage in reliable sources, so that these sources can be used to verify the article content. Due to the lack of significant coverage, we can't build a sufficient article about this model. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to competition. Redirects are cheap and useful. Also preserves the history should future events warrant expansion of an independent article with legit sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence anywhere of notability. By all means we can create a redirect, but there is nothing substantial in the article's history worth keeping. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Any Ukrainian girl is a model, and we have millions of them over here) Ukrained2012 (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above to the model contest. As Candleabracadabra says, redirects are cheap and useful and should she go anywhere down the notability route, at least the history is there to work with. Mabalu (talk) 13:13, 5 September 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 Israel Luna#Career. Jujutacular (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking Zombie Ass for Jesus

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

As far as I can tell, this article is about a movie that does not exist. There was a failed Kickstarter campaign to make a movie, but nothing to suggest that the movie was actually made. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or otherwise userfy per WP:NFF and TOO SOON. The thing did receive coverage in Fangoria last year.[2] and considering the attention the filmmaker received for his earlier work, and the whackiness of the title, I think we might expect this to get coverage when released. Just no place for it yet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Struck, See below. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}[reply]
~~Incubate or userfy~~ per above. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redireect to director. That is an appropriate target. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a crystal ball exercise. No prejudice against recreation after released and a few published reviews have appeared. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Userfy until it is out and it is a notable film. If it's not notable then a redirect to the director can be used but so far it doesn't pass notbaility guidelines and is a violiation of WP:CRYSTAL Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This film will not be made. The kickstarter failed, as such, it probably will never see the light of day. It fails WP:NFILM. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Taylor, not entirely pertinent... but I have personally been in films that did not raise their full expected funds through kickstarter campaigns. Fact here being that a filmmaker having to work on a tighter budget is not a valid reason to claim a film will never be made... and this fellow specializes in super low-budget fare. I do agree it is premature for mainspace, but deletion policy gives us reasonable options to consider in such cases. In a encyclopedia that admits to being an imperfect work-in-progress, it is not an all or nothing proposition. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm... You could be right. What made me wonder was the fact that nearly everything is dated back to summer 2012. It doesn't appear that production will ever start. I suppose incubating would work, but I'm still going to go with "it probably won't be made." Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well... we do have some 2013 coverage about the film and its fund-rasing efforts in genre sources loved by horror film fans but not by Wikipedia. Incubation or userfication would serve just fine for getting this out of mainspace until it is ready. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect title to Israel Luna#Career where I just added information and sourcing. We can alow undeletion or recreation if or when filming begins. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USER:MichaelQSchmidt. Redirects are cheap. I see no problem with a redirect and userfication until it meets notability standards. I think it has to be a notable film for it to have it's own stand alone though, but that bridge can be crossed later. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Er, it doesn't apparently exist? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying it does (yet), but Roscelese... even if not meriting its own article, policy tells us that a non-existant thing can be spoken about somewhere... if done neutrally and properly sourced. THAT's why I wrote it into the target as part of the director's career plans and changed my own vote to a redirect. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I don't spend much time working on film articles, but isn't it generally the case that a film is supposed to have at least started filming for us to have an article on it? (And the coverage isn't there anyway - I'm just somewhat amused that the article starts "...is a film" when, well, it is not.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Roscelese, written by an inexperienced contributor the article has issues... but please note I am NOT advocating that its issues be fixed and it be kept. When a sourcable film topic is too premature for its own separate article, it serves the project to send those readers seeking information to the one place where it makes sense per policy and guideline to speak about the filmmaker's plans in context to his career. No more. No less. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:28, 2 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Mohamad Zhowandai

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

Does not meet general notability requirements and lacks multiple reliable secondary sources. After nearly one year of a request for additional references and sources, no effort has been made to improve the article. Superman7515 (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources even mentioning this individual. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Geo. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I however did find references that referred to him. I included one in the article. I urge a little slack here. If the guy was one of the leading poets in a land with widespread illiteracy then he is important. Poems can be enjoyed even by the illiterate. Illiterate people enjoy have poems read aloud. Illiterate people will memorize their favorite poems, word for word.

I accept that the guy was a leading poet, novelist, editor, and that further searching will provide additional substantiation for this. Remember, there is no standard transliteration scheme for Pashtu or Dari, so his name could be transliterated a dozen different ways. Geo Swan (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is the only reference I was able to find when doing my WP:BEFORE search, but it fails to meet the "significant coverage" aspect of WP:N that states "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" as that one sentence is the only mention of Zhowandai in the entire book. As well as the fact WP:N states widespread coverage from multiple sources, the only source found in the Google Books search is the book now referenced and a book that states it is compiled from Wikipedia articles, which would not be acceptable as an article can't source back to itself, and there are no results found when a Google News archive search is performed of his name as typed and multiple variations I tried myself in a good faith effort to locate some news on this individual. Superman7515 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 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 Christina Aguilera. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Bratman

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

Claims of notability seems to be based on past relationship to Christina Aguilera. Is this non-notable per WP:INHERITED? Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christina Aguilera. Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 23 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/ Redirect seems reasonable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INHERITED; no independent notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rich kid who never did anything but marry hot famous girl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imurfunkeymonkey (talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 September 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. Anyone wanting some of this article for merger contact me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Nadelman

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

No significant independent coverage. Is writing one song enought to establish notability? Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a stub which by definition means it is not yet expanded into a full-fledged article. No one said that his "writing one song" establishes his notability per se (although indeed sometimes writing one song does establish notability). Nadleman is primarily an artist whose work has been shown in various venues, so it would seem that outside evaluators have deemed his work worthy of exhibit. I think if we want to improve the encyclopedia we should not be wasting energy discussing and eliminating stubs but rather work on expanding them. Tvoz/talk 02:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but how long does a stub exist before it becomes obvious that it will not be expanded? This particular stub dates back to 2007.Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we on some kind of deadline? Do we have a paucity of space? Let the stub remain, for as long as it takes. Tvoz/talk 03:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply being a stub isn't a defence to deletion. This article has no references establishing the notability of the subject—the first is a primary source (an autobiography) and the second is a chart listing for a different artist which doesn't mention Nadelman at all. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:18, 21 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N as there is no "verifiable, objective evidence" this individual has recieved significan attention and WP:NRVE.
Merge to grandfather's article. Legacies are appropriate to include and the individual can later be broken out if more coverage emerges. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:09, 28 August 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. Anyone wanting this article userfied to their user space contact me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea E. Wilson

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

Fails WP:GNG, as most sources are about the clients she worked for. Promo and puffery. The Banner talk 12:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:46, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy Needs citations to substantial coverage in reliable sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy as per Candleabracadabra, can't really disagree with him. Userfying would give the article a chance for improvement. Mabalu (talk) 13:08, 5 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kazem Ghalamchi

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

Bio of a living person with only one source which is not in English. The main copy makes no meaningful claim to notability. Korruski^Talk 17:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Kabirat (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's a very famous entrepreneur in Iran, though the article is written badly and does not show his notability. Pahlevun (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if someone (maybe Pahlevun?) could explain in the article or here what Kanoon Farhangi Amoozesh is. That would help those of us who are unfamiliar with things that are famous in Iran to understand what makes Ghalamchi notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 26 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very famous entrepreneur in Iran would likely have some coverage in Western media. I can't find anything. Does not meet notability criteria. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:58, 28 August 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. Per G4: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Alahverdian. Created by a sock. Rs chen 7754 19:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Alahverdian

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

This appears to be one man's attempt to publicize his lawsuit against the government. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is properly cited with references from The Boston Globe, the Associated Press, The Providence Journal, an NBC affiliate, a CBS affiliate, and multiple other reliable, unbiased sources. Last time I checked, I'm not Alahverdian. There are multiple news stories and references. Frontpage1 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also see: here. Frontpage1 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also see this listing of LexisNexis Articles related to Alahverdian. Frontpage1 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Alahverdian on August 17. I can't see the deleted article to determine if CSD G4 applies. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 27 August 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. Sandstein 06:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Al Farook mosque

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

Non-notable place of worship Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 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 August 20. Snotbot t • c » 21:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an image of it. Difficult for me to assess whether the project was notable and covered in Zambia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a lack of coverage indicates a WP:GNG fail. That, and the nature of the article. The creator (who has been inactive for three years) actually noted who the muezzin is. Even at famous mosques, such information is usually only known (and cared about) by actual attendees - the article gives the appearance of a vanity project by an attendee irrespective of notability guidelines. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:55, 28 August 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. postdlf (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Energy

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

I would have considered this for G11, but it was accepted by AfC . I tried fixing this to be less promotional, but gave up on ity. Sections beginning "With over 400 patents awarded or pending, Intelligent Energy holds a large and growing bank of intellectual property, accumulated over 25 years. " show a clear promotional intent. The repeated use of the full name in every other sentence show the promotional results, as does the emphasis on what its technology would be able to do when and if it ever becomes commercialized. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubbify. Although the technology exists, the grossly promotional nature of the article, which reads like a press release or advertorial, is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Blow it up and start again with only those things that can be verified by independent, reliable sources (which wouldn't be much). Some of the language is horrific and many of the biggest claims are completely unsourced. The subject might be notable but this is a clear breach of WP:NOTPROMOTION. Basically just an advertorial. Stalwart111 00:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I was dubious about this at first, but the list of awards makes me think it is notable. Sunday Times Tech Track 100 is (I think) about the 100 most important emerging technology companies in UK. Sunday Times thus thinks it notable. Being a bad article is a reason for improvement, not for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs improvement but meets GNG and ORG. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom's only contribution to the article is AfD nomination. This can be fixed. ~KvnG 21:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up or stubbify - This article is not so good as a good article, but... things are not all that bad. --Søren 22:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tito☸Dutta 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing. Normal editing processes should be used to fix overly promotional tone. Carrite (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still say keep possibly as Intelligent Energy Limited. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baptiste Aloé

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was declined. However, Mr. Aloé still has not yet played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:42, 27 August 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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this nomination also met the guidelines for speedy keep as it was nominated by a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eimar O'Duffy

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. AdamSmithUS (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject appears to have been a fairly prominent author in his time. Article in its current state is very poor, but subject seems very viable for inclusion. Here is one book devoted entirely to the subject's works, and this Gbooks search reveals a lot of authors writing about the subject once you go to Page 2. Everything on Page 1 is the subject's own works. Appears to be fairly heavily-cited on Google Scholar as well. Keep per the relevant notability guideline. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: The article certainly needs work but the subject's notability is hardly in doubt. See his Ricorso entry and material scooped up by a routine internet search. (Note: The proposer is a highly inexperienced editor who joined Wikipedia three days ago and who, at time of writing, has performed a staggering total of 29 edits since then.) — O'Dea (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject is notable but article definitely needs improvement. Snappy (talk) 17:09, 30 August 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. Want content for merger? Ask me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majin Zarak

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

This character does not assert notability, and the possibility improvement is unlikely. TTN (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourced info to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:04, 30 August 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. Business appears to fulfill the general notability guideline. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knockouts

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia. It's just that some salon named "Knockouts" is offering hot girls for hair cutting and massage. AdamSmithUS (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A franchise chain with 500 franchises is bigger than "some salon"... Passes GNG for footnotes showing. "The Hooters of Haircutting" is a great phrase... Reactionary, disgusting, notable. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable based on existing sourcing. Strongly, strongly suggest that nominator review the relevant guidelines governing notability before continuing to nominate articles to AfD, based on recent nominations (some of these nominations seem perfectly fine to me, others clearly should not have been nominated). Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources = this is notable, whether we like the idea of "The Hooters of Haircutting" or not. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, no matter what you think of the idea. Lots more media coverage including Salon[3] and Jezebel[4] as well as local press all over the USA.[5][6] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr. Rimmer, please note that though the software may be used, it is not necessarily notable under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which require in-depth discussion of it (reviews in major publications, etc.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D-Cubed

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

lack of sources independent of subject. Clearly fails WP:GNG on sourcing, leaving either needing more sources or evaluation of whether the academic sources are widely quoted. Possibly this should be userfied by User:Jon Rimmer (SPA / disclosed COI editor). Widefox; talk 09:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please find below a list of additional secondary references about the D-Cubed technology/history. The technology is widely used so there are many other references, but they tend to be brief, or don't have much secondary analysis. I hope the references below will help to establish notability. If I can do anything further to address any remaining concerns about the page, please let me know. Thanks.Jon Rimmer (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) A detailed, independent review of the main D-Cubed technology:

D-Cubed’s Dimensional Constraint Manager, Christoph M. Hoffmann, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, March 2001

http://computingengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1399189

(2) An academic paper describing an implementation of the D-Cubed components, indirectly referencing their functionality. Includes brief explicit description of the role of D-Cubed components in constraint solving, collision detection and physical simulation:

"Combining Dynamic Modeling with Geometric Constraint Management to Support Low Clearance Virtual Manual Assembly", J. Mech. Des. 132(8), 081002 (August 2010)

http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1450105

(3) A broad review of D-Cubed technology, applications and customers in a national IT publication:

CHIP Romania, June 2013 (pages 58-61).

http://www.chip.ro/librarie?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=4869

(4) Industry blog with D-Cubed history and technology overview:

http://camzone.org/2011/09/07/component-technology-theres-no-fun-without-it/

(5) Industry publication with brief description of the D-Cubed components’ various applications:

http://www.digitalmanufacturingreport.com/dmr/2013-02-28/siemens_boosts_plm_with_d-cubed_update.html

(6) Also, the academic research basis of the main D-Cubed components is discussed in 2 academic papers by their original developer J.C. Owen. These are widely cited:

(a) "Algebraic solution for geometry from dimensional constraints", J. C. Owen, Proceedings of the first ACM symposium on Solid modeling foundations and CAD/CAM applications, p.397-407, June 05-07, 1991, Austin, Texas, United States

Citations: 52 (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=112573&dl=GUIDE)

(b) "Constraints on Simple Geometry in Two and Three Dimensions", John C. Owen, Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl., 06, 421 (1996).

Citations: 9 (http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218195996000265#citedBySection)

Some of the papers that reference (6) also include various references to D-Cubed technology, though they are probably too brief to include on the D-Cubed page. I can add some of these too if it's recommended though.Jon Rimmer (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Of the above refreence spam, only this one is good for this purpose. Feel free to ping my talk page if solid sources get added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since the technology is embedded into bigger systems, it isn't often explicitly discussed at length, even though it's well known in its field. Having said that, here are a couple more independent secondaries. Both decribe research based on the D-Cubed components and provide some coverage of what the technology is for:

A Constraint Manager to Support Virtual Maintainability, Marcelino, L, Fernando, T and Murray (section 4.2 cites D-Cubed as basis of research)

Combining Physical Constraints with Geometric Constraint-based Modeling for Virtual Assembly Abhishek Seth, 2007 (pages 109-115 cite D-Cubed as basis of research).

Jon Rimmer (talk) 16:55, 23 August 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "it isn't often explicitly discussed at length" is an understatement. Delete as non-notable, lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think there are several in-depth sources above which are from reliable publications, the most significant of which are (1), (3) and (6a). Unfortunately these sources may be difficult to access (subscription), although the latter publication has ~50 citations in other academic research, which may help corroborate significance. Regarding notability, in addition to references above, an online search yields broad coverage e.g. a source for the article’s opening paragraph from the Chicago Tribune. Do the reviewers think the sources are still lacking, given it's a specialist subect area? Is it a problem accessing content in major sources, or just down to the number of sources? Thanks Jon Rimmer (talk) 18:34, 1 September 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chencho (footballer)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Only found a blog which says he has played international football for Bhutan but no match reports saying so. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - per nom. He has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and unless his international appearances can be reliably sourced, the article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, also appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - new research below shows he is an international footballer, meets WP:NFOOTBALL on that basis. Article needs improving/updating. Giant Snowman 12:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators Comment: I just did some more in-depth research and I found this. It indicated that the Chencho being described here is the one who played for Royal Wahingdoh F.C. and that he has played for the Bhutan national football team in 2008. I am just wondering though if this is a reliable source or not? If it is then I am willing to withdraw this AfD. From the looks of it I am guessing it is. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played multiple times for Bhutan as per NFT and has even managed to score as reported here. He was also a used sub in this game, apparently playing as both striker and goalkeeper in the tournament. In addition, if you go to the pre-qualifying tab and click on the relevant match report icons, you can see he played as striker in both legs against Afghanistan at this link. I see no reason to doubt Kuensel, it is the national news service for Bhutan, and the indepth interview with the player seems perfectly reliable in terms of helpling establish GNG beyond his international record. Easily passes WP:NFOOTY, this article needs to be improved rather than deleted. Fenix down (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about the goal.com reports is that there is more than 1 Chencho for Bhutan. We do not know which one he is. The NFT report works perfectly. Easily a keep. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - then as the nom, can I suggest the AfD is withdrawn? Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not while there is a delete !vote....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 2 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MODAClouds

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

Superficially looks notable and well-sourced, but in reality the sources fall in to one of two categories:

-Low quality and/or primary sources that DO mention the subject, but do nothing to establish notability to a satisfactory standard

-High quality secondary sources such as the Guardian, the BBC etc that make NO mention of the article subject itself. I've waded through all of the major press sources and they reference cloud computing in general but not the subject of this article. The Guardian quote referenced within the article is a particularly good example of that.

Overall, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG or WP:ACADEMIC. Korruski^Talk 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Wikipedia sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language, I would question the quality of some of these sources compared to some of the sources used to give background to the article but references providing specific information about the article subject are legitimate secondary authorities on the subject that make direct reference to MODAClouds. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English, so significant discussion at workshops in academic circles and in industry as alluded to by many of the references count as perfectly acceptable evidence of notability. Also the project itself has increased notability in a time of economic crisis in Europe, where financial institutions across southern Europe are being bank-rolled by European citizens, there is a far higher level of scrutiny toward European membership, public funding and therefore it seems crucial for active citizens to understand the economies of European nations and where that money is being directed. It’s also a pertinent case study that looks into a notable issue that affects developers looking into cloud services which are an important tech industry across the globe. Particularly in light of Wikipedia’s own involvement in whistle-blowing and the role of security in data storage. Deletion of an article that contains objective descriptions of a fascinating subject, and a unique project within that context, that is both timely and important in a major developing technology industry that has received citations and coverage from a wide range of sources would seem wasteful and punitive. Wikipedia does not guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, but there is more than enough evidence to suggest this article remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudBurster (talk • contribs) 14:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a debate about if you think it is "important" or "fascinating", but if the subject satisfies the notability guidelines for a separate Wikipedia article. For that you need to find sources from people not involved in the project that cover it in depth. Even other languages are fine, if they are independent. It is hard to tell since the article only has raw urls and not full citations. It even seems to mislead using a link back to Wikipedia. From the project's own timeline it only started in March 2013. There are hundreds if not thousands of research and development projects that use the buzzwords of cloud computing to justify their funding. Many use Capital Letters to Make them Sound More Important, or claim to be a solution. Only time will tell which ones get noticed enough to justify articles. So suggest moving it into a user space until these problems can be resolved. In the meanwhile, if your interest is in this are, articles like Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development could use some work to be paraphrased into normal English, and a more balanced tone that discusses objectively if some of the promises made in the past were actually kept. W Nowicki (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also observe that articles like CELAR and PaaSage that follow a very similar promotional pattern. They tend to speak mostly in future tense, without giving much context of when the acronyms started or how big they are, with bare urls and other issues. The WP:Single-purpose account created all three on August 22 and 23. W Nowicki (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage found in non-primary sources (checked bbc, independent, telegraph, guardian, times and ac.uk). Coverage at Imperial isn't independent. Project is still in its very early stages, if it has become notable by the time it completes in c. Sept 2015, then re-create it. - Pointillist (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC). Postscript... It might be possible to assemble an article about "Multi-Cloud Applications" and/or "Federated Clouds", which could reference MODAClouds, PaaSage, OpenStack and perhaps the Reservoir model. But for that we'd need a neutral insider with access to both academic and industry-analyst content. - Pointillist (talk) 20:57, 5 September 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. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yolanda Pecoraro

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

Seems "notable" only for the allegation in a number of tabloids that she is a Scientologist who was allegedly auditioned to be Tom Cruise's wife. Obviously such allegations are unverifiable, but if she has no notability beyond this, IMHO an inclusionist stance is not warranted here. Laval (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One event, which IMHO is only worthy for a tabloid, does not guarantee notability, especially when the case is inherit, notability is not inherit. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of her film or television roles received any coverage? Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that news outlets have referred to her as a "little known" actress [7] it's safe to assume that she is still at the bottom of the Hollywood ladder. There are literally no secondary/tertiary sources -- all we've got are a bunch of news articles from last year and a few more recently that she was auditioned for Cruise. It's all hearsay and given that we can't even mention any of this weird garbage on any BLP, this article has no legs. Also editors should take into account the fact that this person is receiving publicity only for the fact of being a Scientologist who may or may not have been auditioned for the role of Stepford wife numéro trois, this article is going to get its fair share of edit war. And because none of the sources available are verifiable at all, based on either hearsay or the subject's own words. Considering yet another former Scientologist from Norway just alleged recently that she also was auditioned, we could break out the tinfoil and speculate that this is all a very big astroturfing campaign and publicity stunt. Laval (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My investigation found similar. Delete Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. This is a clear case of too soon. The current article should be deleted, but I anticipate reliable sources beginning to discuss her soon, at which point it should be recreated. Andrew³²⁷ 13:50, 28 August 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 Joseph Jordania. And delete. Sandstein 06:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who Asked the First Question?

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

This article is about a non-notable self-published work. The pdf can be downloaded here. The author of the work has been blocked in the past for using sock puppets to promote his own work here and cross-link them with each other and his own article. One of those sock puppets is the original creator of this particular article. Dusty|💬|You can help! 13:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)|[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Obviously a poor attempt to misuse Wikipedia for shameless self-promotion. Laval (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - As per above and per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a link to the Koizumi Fumio Prize, but it looks like it was given to Jordania for his work in general rather than the book specifically. (Annual (2009) Koizumi Fumio Prize) I'll try to do a cleanup of this and stubbify it if necessary. Offhand I'd probably suggest just redirecting it to the author's page if sources can't be found. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding some claim of it being used as a reference for other things, such as this Oxford Press book and in this book review that references the work in relation to something else. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also this journal article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joseph Jordania. I found where this work is referenced, but not heavily enough to merit it being kept on that basis alone. I'll note that this article is pretty much a mess and the article for Jordania itself needs some pretty heavy editing to prune it down to a manageable size. I don't know if this is a case of a person setting out to deliberately create a promotional article or if it's a case of an overly enthusiastic student that decided to create what sort of boils down to a fan page for their professor. They do exist, believe it or not. I've already redirected one of his other works to his article and I'd suggest the same here. I'm finding just enough to where I could argue a keep of sorts for Jordania, but his works aren't independently notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the notion of the redirect. Also, kudos to Tokyogirl79 for her work to improve the Joseph Jordania article. Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:25, 31 August 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 Burst transmission. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bursty transmission

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

Original research. Appears to be the author's own explanation for the prevalence of burst transmission. PROD (and seconded PROD) removed by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Laval (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is essentially a dictionary definition. Redirect to Burst transmission; there doesn't appear to be anything useful to merge. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Burst transmission. Bursty transmission implies Burstiness in the transmission statistics; all burst transmissions are bursty by design, so this article doesn't add anything new to the topic of Burst transmission. As with Mike Rosoft, I don't find anything useful to merge. --Mark viking (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - seems reasonable Fbryce (talk) 03:33, 28 August 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. Please note that each editor is only allocated one bolded !vote per AFD, unless another of his or hers is stricken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal group

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

Fails WP:CORP, no secondary sources. Article was prodded last October - the creator defended it saying "give me at least another month to compile more interesting information about the company, after which you can make a decision" and has not touched the article since. McGeddon (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is not a good article, but I would suggest that all companies listed on LSE (though perhaps not subsidiary markets) are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable independent sources with in-depth coverage. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks substantial coverge, this it does not suffice Notability criteria. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it plausible that someone would type "Personal group" in the search box? And if someone does type "Personal group" in the search box, what are they actually looking for? (Odds are they aren't looking for a corporation).
I actually think Personal group should be a disambiguation page of some sort. The article about the Personal Group Company belongs in Personal Group (corporation) if it's not deleted.—S Marshall T/C 07:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the person who started this article cannot establish some bit of notability within a 24 hr period, then it's highly doubtful there is much verifiable data on this company beyond their own primary sources. Considering how easy it is these days to keep articles on non-notable subjects with a fleeting mention in a magazine or newspaper often sufficient for inclusionists to prevent such articles from deletion, there really isn't much excuse. It is ridiculously easy for any article at this point to survive AfD. So if not even a single notable source can be found to justify this article, doubtful there will be anything more in a month. Laval (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still Keep, perhaps not under this name. As a Stock Exchange listed company, it ought to be notable, but the article should perhaps be renamed to Personal Group Holdings. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 5 September 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 Other Backward Class. Bit of an odd close, I know, but the only other alternative was Delete Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Other Backward Classes

AfDs for this article:

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

This incomplete list is difficult to edit because of its size and yet one of the primary reasons for creating it was to allow sorting to be done by various criteria, thus meaning that the proposal to split rather defeats the object. It relies entirely on ambiguous primary sources that in turn often have other ambiguous primary sources which we have not considered, and it fundamentally just reproduces lists that are freely available on official websites. The official classification of Indian communities is in a state of almost permanent flux and yet the nature of the sources makes this very difficult to maintain and thus to reflect accurately. It is also more often than not impossible to link to articles about those putative communities even when we may have them because naming conventions are not consistent either in the sources or in our articles. To be honest, this was a good faith creation of dubious merit because those involved in its creation simply lacked understanding of the complexities, as was reflected on various talk page and in ANI discussions. Some things are just best left alone. Sitush (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC) 3[reply]

Keep The list passes WP:LISTN, being based upon an official list maintained by an agency of the Indian government, and covered in other sources such as Encyclopaedia of Backward Castes. It is comparable with equivalent pages which we maintain for other countries such as List of federally recognized tribes or List of ethnic groups in China. To suggest that it is too difficult to do this for a major country like India seems to be special pleading. Difficulties of size and nomenclature are quite common on Wikipedia and should be addressed by editing effort, not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that has happened since the last deletion discussion has been negative. This article is not progressing, it was kept on the basis that the evident problems would be fixed and while, yes, there is no deadline, there is a clear structural issue that cannot be resolved. I am fed up of people who know nothing about this subject claiming that it can be sorted out. It has not been, it will not be and it cannot be. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a substantial page and its size is a problem of success, not failure. Your nomination seems to have been provoked by the suggestion of another editor that the article be split. This is grounds for a speedy keep, per WP:SK, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion". Warden (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, my nomination is based on the reasons given and if provoked at all was because of having to revert yet another poor contribution a few hours ago. Please do me the courtesy of assuming good faith and not personalising this. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the most recent section of the article's talk page, you responded to a split suggestion by saying "It is not even worth splitting and should instead go to WP:AFD". And, just now, when I started to improve the article by wikilinking the first entry in the list, you have immediately reverted. The problem in getting this article further improved seems clear - it's your disruption of good faith activity. See dog in the manger. Warden (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was weeks ago and I left things alone while waiting for further input, which did not appear. Your link was indeed original research and you only have to peruse the discussions to realise that. You did peruse those discussions before !voting here, of course. Now start assuming good faith. - Sitush (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously this topic is notable, it is of encyclopedic interest (caste, ethnicity, and religion are the basic cross-sections in India), and it appears to be something that can be sourced. I do see Sitush's logic in wanting to delete, because caste-warriors on Wikipedia are among the most annoying trolls and this page will likely always be a magnet for trolls.Frankly I would be surprised if this page stays in the same form for a day. However, because it is of major encyclopaedic interest, I still suggest keeping it, but policing it (which I am happy to help out with).Pectore^talk 00:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting does not resolve the big issue, which is that of maintaining something that changes frequently and impacts so significantly on the lives of people in a country where, like it or not, people are killed in large numbers every year because of a perceived social status. Yes, we are not censored but splitting this into regional articles will mean that it really does add nothing to what the official lists provide and yet will mean some poor soul (me, probably) having to keep track of 29 articles instead of one. The only sensible justification for the existence of this list in the first place - it has had protracted discussion - was that it would enable people to see the situation across a multiplicity of states etc rather than one at a time. That was why the table sorting and overlinking was considered necessary. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list has existed for about 260 days but has not yet had 100 edits. Most of the activity seemed to be during its construction and the list of contributors that I extracted today was:

edits

30 Doncram

26 Sitush

16 Rich Farmbrough

4 Orlady

3 AnomieBOT (bot), Yogesh Khandke

2 Colonel Warden

1 JL-Bot (bot), Titodutta, Yobot (bot), Fram, Koavf, 115.112.231.109 (anon), GDibyendu, Auric, GoingBatty, CarlKenner, PalakkappillyAchayan, 59.177.3.237 (anon)

The bulk of these contributors seem to be veteran editors and gnomes, not the hypothetical horde of caste-warriors and trolls. There seems to be no need for special policing or restrictions.

Warden (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is common, then it all explodes. It's a shame that I can't canvass because it appears that the only way you'll accept the wisdom of my wide experience in this sphere is if 100 other people say the same thing. The crap really hit the fan when you start linking articles because it is then that it becomes apparent as a list. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is evidence, not canvassed opinion. The article gets a reasonable level of traffic - about 450 hits per day - but the evidence of its editing history shows that it is comparatively uncontroversial and unproblematic. I have more trouble maintaining list of redheads, say, but find that quite manageable. Warden (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go look at the periodic problems that arise on, say, Nair, Ezhava or Yadav. These things come in waves, often co-ordinated off-wiki, and they are massive time-sinks that almost always result in resort to ANI and to blocks or sanctions under ARBIPA. Go speak to Boing! or Qwyrxian, Blade or Fowler&fowler (nb: not linking to avoid accusations of canvassing). You are writing as someone so unfamiliar with the topic area that you even thought an Other Backward Class was a Scheduled Tribe and that these official lists are somehow set in stone even though there have been over 1,200 challenges to them - it does not bode well. - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, those other articles are problematic because of the claims made about the early history of those castes and communities which are difficult to resolve because their distance in time. This list seems much less open to dispute because it documents their present-day status which may be readily verified, being the business of a dedicated government agency and bureaucracy. And even though those other articles are problematic, they still exist as blue-links, don't they? We haven't deleted them and so we shouldn't delete this either, as it seems free of such wrangling. As for the scheduled tribe issue, this was suggested by a source, "Today the Karen form a small but important community of the island since they are trying to attain the status of Scheduled Tribe in India, which would entitle them of special privileges and concessions granted to underdeveloped groups of the country." Such nitpicking is not a reason to delete as it is explicit policy that our articles may be imperfect. Warden (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your understanding is incomplete. For example, the OBC lists feature in arguments concerning the Ezhava/Thiyya relationship. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to user space. The topic of this list is undeniably notable, but the difficulties inherent in maintaining the list -- and the strong reactions that the topic of caste can produce -- are substantial reason not to attempt to reproduce this list in Wikipedia. An analogy: The United States Internal Revenue Code is a notable topic of great interest to many people, and aspects of it are described in several Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia has not attempted to reproduce or explicate the entire code -- because it's not within our capacity to do so, and anyway the minutiae aren't encyclopedic topics. Similarly, Wikipedia can describe aspects of the topic of OBCs in the article Other Backward Classes and related articles, and those articles can describe the national list and the lists for individual states, but (for reasons explained by Sitush) republishing the complete list -- and maintaining it -- exceeds our capacity.

I'm amused to see that my 4 edits to the article are misinterpreted as indicating my commitment to the article, since my very first edit there was to start the first AfD. (None of my edits were substantive.) --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point of listing the editors of this article is to show that the claims of "strong reactions" are false. Your first AFD resulted in a finding of Keep but here you are again making the same failed argument even though there's no evidence that having this list in mainspace causes trouble.

The outcome was Consensus is to KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted I contend that the fixing has not happened and that it cannot. Rich Farmbrough was making an attempt at it but in fact that has just made matters worse because it has bloated the list. And since the primary purpose - the claimed encyclopedic benefit - was to enable sorting by name, region etc, there is no point in splitting it. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD was made on the grounds that the list was incomplete because at that time it was just 1.6 Kb with only two entries. Since that AFD was closed, the article has been expanded massively so that it is now 406K with numerous entries. The expected work has been done and you're just nit-picking now. Issues like sorting are a matter of presentation, not deletion. Warden (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not the only reason why an article should be maintained, there is also its maintenance factor, is the article worthy maintaining, editing, reading? I think this article goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia, trying to trace a list with communities is hard because there are thousand of communities out there. Citing only the fact that is unencyclopedic would be just a circular logic, but also mentioning that it is interesting is not a reason for keeping, anything is interesting to someone, somewhere. Also it is not every useful information that should be kept within wikipedia, there are thousand of subjects which are interesting, but are not maintained within WP just because it is too complex, or too simple, also wikipedia is not a place for partisan information. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, maintainance is not a factor in keeping/deleting: AfD is not meant for cleanup. Given that delete !votes recognize the topic is notable, they are reminded of our deletion policy, that requires that what can be fixed by editing, is fixed by editing, not deletion. We have no deadline to do this tomorrow, either. --cyclopia ^speak! 20:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine in theory. In practice, it means that a hopelessly inadequate list of dubious currency will remain on a major encyclopedia for more or less ever and a day without proper maintenance and with a potential impact on any and all of around 400 million people. It has been said time and again that there is a systemic bias on en-WP which means that the coverage and quality thereof is poor. It is not helped by the interventions of what amount to well-intentioned policy wonks. This is a WP:IAR situation - when was the last time most of those !voting keep here actually really got involved in this subject matter? When will be the next time? The list does this project and its subject no real service and that is a situation which will only get worse. Seriously, if those !voting keep here want to improve our coverage then get involved in doing so. There is no deadline, sure, but there is also a valid argument that we as a project would be WP:DICK if we allow this egregious, westernised encapsulation of an ambiguous primary source to exist simply because our policies say it should do. I sometimes despair of the potential impact of those who stick their fingers into areas about which they know little and, alas, this is one of those occasions. Go take a look at just how many India-related articles have had more or less zero improvement since they were tagged for this, that or the other since, say, 2006. How long is this "no deadline" piece of string when it reflects so poorly on us and on a population the vast majority of which are incapable of amending it due to lack of internet access and illiteracy? Fix it or lose it ... and we've tried to fix it. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but recall the casualties that have already resulted from good-faith efforts to "maintain" this article. After its creator got a topic ban that prevented him from working on it, Rich Farmbrough (one of the few editors brave enough to undertake massively complex coding projects) decided to do the heavy lifting of creating and populating the humongous table -- and (after failing to fix some big glitches in his work) was rewarded with a one-year site ban for violating his editing restriction by using automation to edit. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I know zero about the topic. But the point is that Wikipedia is an eternal work in progress. It cannot be anything else. We can't expect our articles to be all correct, polished and perfect -in fact, 99% aren't. This is one of these cases. I understand the situation is frustrating: in this case you should stubify and/or tag it, so that readers know that it is in a sorry state and why (In general, WP should do more to explain precisely to readers what are problems with an article). As far as I hear, User:Sitush, you do a truly excellent job in this area, and as such I respect and listen to your advice carefully. However I cannot support to solve this issue, when the topic is clearly notable and worth caring of, simply by slashing the article. --cyclopia ^speak! 07:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the difficulties inherent in this and other lists of India's castes and classes is that they get built by people who know zero about the topic and assume that a valid list can be created by taking a list from a government source, formatting it, and adding links to Wikipedia articles that appear to be about the groups on the list. This is perilous because the topic of caste in India is much like some of Alice's observations of Wonderland in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland: the more you learn about it, the less you believe you know. I don't know very much about OBCs and caste, but I've learned that the national lists and the state lists of OBCs don't necessarily agree with one another; OBCs apparently get listed and de-listed with some frequency; "class" names are inconsistent, confusing, and ambiguous due to a complex of factors including differences between languages and orthography, as well as controversies over definitions of the classes; and a Wikipedia article a caste/class/group that appears to match a name on this list may or may not be about the same group that is an OBC. Stubifying the article but leaving it in article space, and thus potentially inviting another user to repeat Rich Farmbrough's misadventure, is a bad idea. The topic of lists of OBCs can be effectively covered in the article Other Backward Class and possibly in limited-scope articles like List of Muslim Other Backward Classes communities; it is foolhardy for Wikipedians to attempt to create and maintain a comprehensive list of OBCs when the Indian government's official lists are a complex mess. --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are difficulties with sourcing, then these could be explained and perhaps the apparent GNG requirement could be shown to be unmet. I have no issues with a merge. Again, I do not know the topic but I am worried when we try to deal with problematic articles by killing them, that's it. I just hope other solutions can be considered. I suppose that the topic is at risk of being recreated in some form or the other anyway, if deleted, so I am unsure the maintainance concerns are fully abated. Anyway, I hope more knowledgeable editors will chime in. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:27, 30 August 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Allman

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Oremiter, whose rationale is included below. The AFD was originally placed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Allman in error. The article was then put up for a G4, but since the original AFD was in 2005 and the article was speedied then anyway, I figured a debate would be better. No real comments on the merits, but none of the sourcing at the time of this post is in any way the sort of reliable sourcing that indicates notability. It's all bio pages and CVs and the like. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Vanity page. Does not meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oremiter (talk • contribs) 12:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG for an article of this type to be retained. Seems to not be a wiki-notable person. Changed to Keep, the addition of multiple independent references on 23 August changes the notability and now meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Showings at galleries (rather than major museums) and a student award are not enough for WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Not an acclaimed artist; no national/international awards. Page was perhaps created by Allman himself for self-aggrandizement purposes. Oremiter (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have already made your position known above. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not wrong, but the first comment at the top was moved here by me when I re-did the nomination, thus the confusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Allman is not the subject of "significant coverage."Saxamaphone1 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)— Saxamaphone1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fred newman, Saxamphone1 and Oremiter are sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's embarrassing as all hell. I've struck their recommendations, above. Since we have other editors also recommending Delete, the AFD continues - otherwise, I'd close it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -meets criteria as subject of multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV in the WP:GNG from reliable, non-related, independent sources the Kansas City Star the Los Angeles Times plus inclusion in an art historical book Signs of Apocalypse or Rapture. Per the WP:SOURCE and WP:BIO (and WP:ARTIST) guidelines, these references support Allman as a wiki-notable person.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.41.136 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As 63.227.41.136 notes, the available sources for this article satisfy the requirements of the general notability guideline. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I usually advocate that articles such as this be deleted ASAP with a vengeance since there is literally no actual notability, but considering how many other articles on truly non-notable painters, photographers, etc survive with a few magazine or newspaper articles, then this guy is just as notable as them. I've nominated quite a few of these types and most have survived AfD and their articles are literally impossible to expand because of the lack of verifiable secondary and tertiary sources. It's not helpful to Wikipedia to keep these articles, but until this zealous inclusionism stops, articles on non-notable figures will continue to survive AfD and given free rein to misuse Wikipedia for shameless self-promotion. When inclusionists attack and insult those of us who are working sincerely towards developing a legitimate and credible encyclopedia, as I have been subjected to a number of times, then this is a serious issue that the community must at some point confront and resolve. I'll probably be insulted and vilified just for this comment, but I'm just saying it like it is. Just my 2 cents. Laval (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability guidelines are clear - Laval, you're identifying a challenge to the structure and purpose of Wikipedia, which is certainly contextual, but you're not making a relevant suggestion for the issue at hand. Using words like "shameless" applies a value judgment which is irrelevant in re the notability guidelines. This article satisfies the guidelines as they stand, barring any future reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.100.98 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per articles demonstrating notability. NewAccount4Me (talk) 02:36, 2 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Perez (blogger)

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

I am unconvinced of the notability of this blogger; he seems to have published an article about a very minor celebrity, but despite press coverage, that is not enough for notability. WP is NOT A TABLOID. There's a limit to the triviality we cover, and nobody can become notable by publishing something not remotely worth our inclusion. The GNG, like everything here, is subject to common sense, but for what we include and what we exclude. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello DGG! I am the one who created this article that you are now considering for deletion, may I appeal your decision to recommend this page for deletion because the subject is indeed notable and still gaining prominence in my country today.

In my research, the subject has 250,000 followers and half a million reads^[1] and it maybe a minor celebrity by North American or European standards but it is already big by Philippine standards, see # 2 of WP:ENT. Further research shows that the subject has followers from outside the Philippines as well on a big number.

I agree with what you said that "WP is NOT A TABLOID. There's a limit to the triviality we cover, and nobody can become notable by publishing something not remotely worth our inclusion." But the subject has been covered by that country's biggest networks on the air and on the net. Citations are available on the article itself. How can it be considered as TABLOID material? Are we to say that the Philippines' (or any other countries') biggest networks are just "tabloid materials" in comparison to the networks found in the editor's home country?

I believe that we should not pass judgement on the integrity of the sources especially if we are not native to their land. That is very subjective. What is important is if the sources are published and verifiable and available. See,WP:NRVE

Also, the one you categorized as a "very minor celebrity" that the subject wrote about is Janine Tugonon and she is the Miss Universe 2012 first runner-up and was considered a Filipino heroine (until her recent bad press) who has her own wiki page therefore is cannot be considered as a "very minor celebrity." Considering her as a "very minor celebrity" is an encyclopedic bias against Filipinos.

But also, the subject gained prominence again when he wrote about the Filipino migrant worker abuses in the Philippines-Taiwan rift, which in no way is a very minor issue. Again, it was cited on the article.

And the subject won an award in a national scale. On our private discussion you mentioned to me that "...Sanchez has what seem to be major awards;" (that's why he has a wiki page). Well, so does my subject, and it was cited properly in 3 major sources as well.

The article, when I did it is guided by WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NRVE

Each editor may have differing opinions about the standards of WP:GNG, but to each editor his own, isn't it? And while there are still no standards yet available, then status quo should be observed. This article passes the WP:GNG, then it should stay until further "improvements" to the WP:GNG is implemented in the future.

Now. other editors might cite WP:BLP1E, but clearly, the subject passed the requirements because he gained attention (national) in three different instances:

Event number 1 on the first viral about Tugonon
Event number 2 on second viral post about Taiwan (totally different topic, one month apart)
Event number 3 was on winning the Globe Tatt awards for Davao (two months later from instance #2)

All of these three different instances have citations and is easily verifiable.

And again, his cult-following satisfies # 2 of WP:ENT (200,000+ readers)

Consider this, you have an entry about Danny Sillada who like the subject gained instant prominence in a "one-time event." However, his work of art was seen by relatively few people (and awareness that goes with it) vs. the work the subject did. Does that mean WP considers the art of blogging a lesser form of art than painting? Since more has seen subject's work rather than Sillada's, isn't notability more in the subject's favor?

Or we can consider this article a stub in the meantime, which is okay too.

Please consider my appeal sir, thank you very much! I am pushing for this because I am confident the subject is notable enough and is still gaining notability and is worthy of an encyclopedic entry like those people mentioned above. comment added by Killerdork (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have an opinion about this article, but your reasoning that it should be kept because there are similar articles on Wikipedia is an argument that seldom carries much weight; please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you can provide examples of the coverage she's received—even bad press—that's what's most likely to demonstrate her notability. —rybec 22:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for the heads-up! A quick google search with keywords "Janine Tugonon" you could see all the worldwide press she has received. Now, for the subject himself, I believe that in the article itself, I have diligently put citations from credible 3rd party sources (following WP:NOTABILITY esp, WP:GNG) that will demonstrate that the subject has been covered by various, big, media outlets in the country, see [AJ Perez(blogger)]. Cited sources came from ABS-CBN, GMA Network, The Philippine Star, Davao Catholic Herald which are big and respected media conglomerates in the subject's country. Also, as I have cited above, the subject has a recorded 250,000 readers. Maybe small by North American standards or European, but already huge in the subject's country of origin. Thanks sir! Killerdork (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. This is all incredibly minor, with a little bit of coverage in mostly fringe media. We're not a tabloid, and the GNG should have some standards. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Calling ABS-CBN and GMA Network as "Fringe Media" is encyclopedic bias and racist against Filipinos. "Fringe media" because it's compared to CNN or MSNBC?

Wow, "racist"? Note the word "mostly". It appears that you have more zeal than sense. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, not you personally, but for the remark about sources which includes ABS-CBN and GMA Network and the Philippine Star. And when you say "Mostly," are you referring to the other cited websites that caters to Filipinos? Cited sources are not just blogs but news outlets. But then again, you cannot impeach the verifiability and reputation of the main sources. How come if it's a US-based site, it's okay while other else (especially from 3rd world sources), we take with a grain of salt? Zeal for the truth, Cheers. WP:BITE

Comment: With all due respect to admin User:DGG, as a basic principle of Wikipedia is that, we build. Maybe the significance of the subject is not that notable in a sense on a worldwide scale, but he passes some of the requirement as User:Killerdork said on his defense. SefBau : msg 03:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The creator makes a convincing argument. This author is no Dylan Thomas, but a piece of his work has attracted some critical and cultural acclaim. Not highly notable, but notable enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator's comments defending the article are too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have !voted sooner in favor of keep if the creator's comments weren't too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be an open & shut case based on this single question: Is the blogger notable in English-language media? If not, delete. Laval (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not policy at all. There is no requirement that sources demonstrating notability be in English, so there is no way an article will be deleted on that basis. postdlf (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would just like to point out that the subject is indeed notable in English-language media as there are proper citation and documentation in the article (all EN sites), although +1 on postdlf on his comments.Drumsaway (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears that the subject of this article is indeed notable. The article creator's comment/vote is too long to parse comfortably, but it's convincing enough on the whole. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:50, 27 August 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. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yekaterinburg-City

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

no indication of notability, unable to establish via google/gnews. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not quite sure what's wrong with the existing sources? They clearly establish notability. And there's more in the Russian Wikipedia article...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2013; 19:16 (UTC)

It looks like most of this never got past the planning phase? looking at the russian site (thanks for the tip) only two buildings aren't indefinitely postponed. In the absence of significant continuing coverage that keeps it in the press, I would say an article like this is WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL. If the Hyatt is completed, then that may deserve its own article. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree enough with this to change my opinion. Some of the buildings have been built, others are being built, and others yet have been postponed (some indefinitely). The coverage may not be bustling with news, but it's ongoing (here's a piece of news from only four days ago)... I'm positive that with due diligence a lot more can be found.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2013; 20:12 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like all vaporware buildings, once it receives significant coverage, it's notable, period, irrespective of whether actually constructed; in any case, some of these were actually built, per the above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be quite notable. Russian language sources seem available. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:48, 28 August 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ennaji Moha

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ennaji Moha

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

This is a biography, (possibly promotional), about an individual who may be notable, but for whom the author has failed to provide any references, while insisting (by way of removing BLP-PROD) that he has provided references. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is a mess, but that is a matter for normal editing. The title should probably be "Moha Ennaji" rather than vice versa, and under that name I can find the Middle East Institute describing the subject as "one of Morocco’s leading academics ... the author and/or editor of numerous books and articles on North Africa". AllyD (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A GS h-index of 8, with some high cites, may satisfy WP:Prof#1 in a not widely cited field. GN has plenty of cites. Did the nominator check these issues? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
weak Keep Weak, mainly because extensive editing is needed (I started) Head of a significant cultural institutions and professor in an important university. But h index is totally useless in the humanities, and shouldn't even be quoted--publications in a field dependent on books don't work that way, because people normally write a small number of long works. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak Keep -- per DGG -- the books are more important than any citation counts on line. On notability, a clear keep, but as DGG notes, the article is a mess and to me that can be taken in consideration on less than clear cut cases. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:04, 31 August 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geena the Latina

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

Cohost on a local FM radio station; notability not demonstrated and I could not find significant coverage in a search. Could be redirected/merged to KHTS-FM. MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a run of the mill local radio co-host, not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be a local talent in the large Latino market of SoCA - need to be careful about WP:SYSTEMIC bias on subjects we may personally have no interest in. For Wikipedia purposes, WP:GNG says need multiple sources about the topic in depth. Typically this is accomplished with magazine, newspaper and online articles of a biographical nature, interviews for example. There is one from DiscoverSD but need more. It says "was featured in 944 magazine “The Tranplants” (May 2009 issue)" but no link or info what depth of coverage. I did find another source in the Sun (Yuma, AZ) called "MTV Tres cameras capture Q's Aqua Party" (May 28, 2009). That's two sources of a biographical nature. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought, but the radio station she works for is not a Latino station - it is a Clear Channel station with a Top 40 format, English language and English market - which is why she is their one and only "Latina". I did a search for "Geena la Latina" to see if there was any coverage in Spanish, but I couldn't find anything. Rereading the article, it doesn't appear that she has ever had anything to do with the Latino market. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and MelanieN. As a side comment, even if someone is notable within a certain non-anglophone community, that doesn't demonstrate notability in English language media. But as MelanieN has informed, this person is English-speaking and not working for Spanish language media. Laval (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I made this same response to you in another AFD, but it bears repeating, @Laval:: that this is the English language Wikipedia only means that we write it in English for English-speaking readers. There is no requirement that sources demonstrating notability be in English. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that is an official policy, then I emphatically disagree with that. As I have stated several times, and certainly bears repeating again and again, it is well within the rights of the community to impose such a requirement.
    Also, I would like to see the exact policy which clarifies this matter (if such a policy exists), as I would like to bring that up at some point and work towards reassessing such an incredibly flawed and incorrect policy.
    Furthermore, as history has proven over the years, Wikipedia functions as a community-led project. The community has every right to impose any restriction so long as there is consensus to impose such restrictions. This is exactly how current policies have ultimately been formulated, as a result of discussion and debate among community members. Change is good. That bears plenty of repetition, doesn't it? Laval (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to agree with Postdlf here. If I had found significant coverage about her in Spanish-language media, I would have considered her to be notable. As I noted, I did search for "Geena la Latina" specifically to see if I could find any Spanish language coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Laval:, within WP:V at WP:NONENG ("Citations to non-English sources are allowed."), and within WP:N at WP:GNG ("Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language"). Both exactly where you'd expect to find the issue addressed. What did you read that made you think the contrary? It's one thing to assert what you think policy should be; it's another thing to assert it as if you think it's already policy when, in fact, policy expressly says the opposite. The former is an opinion; the latter is a mistake. At any rate, WP:VPP is the place to propose such a wide-reaching change, not within individual AFD !votes, though I'd recommend you not waste your time because there is zero chance of that gaining consensus. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed, there is no requirement that our sources be in English; the only requirement is that we write our article in English. As long as the sources meet WP:RS it doesn't matter what language they're in — as long as there's somebody around here with the necessary language skills to ensure that they properly verify our content, it's not necessary for everyone to be able to read the original source. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Someone who is notable would likely have an independently written secondary-sourced bio, but even searching under her real name, Geena Aguilar, turns up nothing but a mention that she was one of the attendees at an awards ceremony. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per most of the usual articles of this ilk here the usual response I give; average morning zoo DJ in average radio market, and seems to be more a symptom of KHTS-FM's article being a horribly unchecked cheerleading mess than anything. We're not a host for a radio personality's resume or CV, and that's what this article reads as. Nate • (chatter) 20:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-market media personality with no strong evidence of non-local notability provided. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 3 September 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. Sandstein 06:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circular arc hull

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

Fails WP:GNG. PROD contested in the grounds that the nomination was done with "zero prior research", which I find a bit odd, as this is the general Google search yield, this is the news archive search, this is Scholar (minus patent filings), and this is the book search (with patent filings). Dea db eef 05:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD should be posted on the Engineering, Sailing, Ships and Watersports projects. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ljungstrom sailboat - keep 'Circular arc hull' as a redirect. The hull design seems only to have been used for sailboats, and the only unique feature of the Ljungstrom sailboat seems to be the hull design. I can see no good reason to have two articles on the same object. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circular arc hulls long pre-date Ljungstrom, although his design was distinct. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 1ou hav8 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep If it existed before the designer, then just have a separate article for it. Is this taught in university level textbooks on shipbuilding or historic ships? Someone from WikiProject Ships should know about this sort of thing. I'll go ask them. Dream Focus 23:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are confusing two entirely different things here: hulls which are circular in cross section (at least up to the waterline), which are anything but new, and probably go back to the dugout canoe, and the Ljungstrom sailboat hull, which isn't actually circular in cross section, but instead consists of a hull having a cross section of two arcs of a constant radius, meeting in the middle at an angle to form a keel - it is a lot easier to understand from a drawing than it is to describe though, take a look here [8]. An article on hulls of circular cross section wouldn't include the Ljungstrom design at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails completely to explain what a circular arc hull is about. As a result, this AfD. There are three aspects to the hulls described here:

Transverse frames of circular section. This makes the frames easy to construct. This technique long pre-dates Ljungstrom. Also, unless you know of a theoretically better shape (quite a modern innovation), why not make it circular? Ljungstrom claimed an advantage here (although I don't know if there's any good reason to support his theory) that radius changes were a cause of drag.

It's not substantially changed whether you use a circle or two circular segments with a ridge on the keel line, as Ljungstrom.

Transverse frames of constant radius. Perhaps counter-intuitive (although once again, who had a really better shape?) but it makes the jig building a lot simpler. You can make all of the frames on a single jig. This is also related to the two segment hull, rather than a single circular arc: By shifting the centre of the arcs, the beam can be narrowed towards stem and stern and the hull section proportions changed, even though the jig radius remains constant.
Circular arcs from front to back defining the profile of the hull, not the elevation view of the frames. These too are not unique to Ljungstrom. There's a later patent, US 4638753, Henry Marschewski , on this with some clear drawings that illustrate the principle. It also describes the resultant hull as being a segment of a toroid, which is a nice clear image. In this case it's claimed that the toroid hull has stability advantages, presumably (If this is my correct interpretation of the patent, I don't believe the mechanics of it) as such a toroid presents a surface with no normal component to impinging waves, thus is rolled less by them. Note that in naval architecture, like the Davis airfoil, it's not necessary to be theoretically correct, just as long as your final answer happens to work out right, even by chance. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~delete Better deleted outright than "fixed" by ARS. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, !voting "delete" just because of an ARS tag on the AfD could be taken as somewhat WP:POINTy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is an encyclopedia, not a social network. The ARS technique for rescuing articles produces crap ignorant articles that can't even be cleanly deleted. With a crap article squatting on a title, no progress happens in the future. ARS-ing an article is harmful and it's better to delete them instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG since the topic has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources listed are not WP:Independent sources. - tucoxn\^talk 08:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion. Distinct hull design that is worthy of inclusion per coverage in reliable sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources cite that discuss this 'distinct hull design' except in relation to the Ljungstrom sailboat. Why should we cover the same topic twice? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is a reasonable outcome as long as the target notes that the design predates the Ljungstrom sailboat (as noted in discussion above). Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that once we start writing about more general 'circular arc' hull designs, we are going into WP:OR territory - we'd need a source that actually covers 'circular arc' hulls as a topic, and makes clear what its defining characteristics are. This article as it stands at least makes clear what its topic is - the Ljungstrom sailboat hull. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion, because I agree with Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC), that there is a distinct hull design that is worthy of inclusion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:10, 4 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Vélez

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

Repost of Sergio Velez by User talk:Marina Toro. Subject does not meet WP:BIO. In the Spanish Wikipedia the article has been deleted as "Artículo de autopromoción". ("Sexed-up" biography: False ISBNs, works unpublished etc. etc.) Martssnail (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources, a requirement for notability. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this isn't false or unpublished, although El Mundo is his employer, at least according to our article. The article claims he won José María Heredia Award (not entirely unimportant award in the Latin American world). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source (Caracol Radio). I would like to point out that the article doesn't read as a self-promotion, it is rather informative. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also [9] (Noticias Montreal). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the person exists, but I still can't see any notability. The article lists 12 books, 12 footnotes, and 12 external links. The same user has published it in over 20 Wikipedias. (It is his only contribution to Wikipedia.) Compare this with the result of your research and you have a world famous author on the one side and an unknown young poet, that have published a few texts in Spanish on the other. --Martssnail (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many articles both by and about Sergio in El Mundo. Not sure when Sergio began working at El Mundo but most likely some of this articles predate his position there because this El Mundo article says "Formerly known as the Child Poet, Velez, from an early age, has been prominent in the city as an important cultural landmark" and "now recognized not only within the country but also abroad," confirmed by the other sources linked by Vejvančický he has won numerous international poetry awards both in Colombia and abroad (the USA and Canada). There are other Colombian newspapers El Colombiano and El Espectador - about 130 results, I have not gone through them but my sense is someone doesn't win all these awards internationally, have so many mentions in multiple Colombian newspapers, without being a notable poet, a profession not known for this sort of attention at a young age. The Spanish AfD was 4 years ago before some of these sources and awards. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Probably a cross-wiki spam" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergio Esteban Vélez). If the article should be keept we need a reliable source for the year of birth. Although apparently the entries submitted by the same person the years of birth ranges from 1973 till 1983. --Martssnail (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- (assuming truth of content) I take the view that his body of work and awards (even if only minor awards) make him notable. The article certainly needs improvement. Doubts over his date of birth are no gorund of deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the information were correct of cause he would be notable. But the text contains numerous errors. His biography is, as said above, "sexed-up". The es:Premio Nacional de Periodismo Simón Bolívar is a well known award, nevertheless I can't find any proof, that he won this award (premiosimonbolivar.com). --Martssnail (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The awards this writer have received are pretty prestigious in his country. He won the Premio Nacional de Periodismo Simón Bolívar, the most important journalism award of Colombia:

El Mundo El Mundo, Opinion He also deserved the Premio José María Heredia, quite known in Latin America: Caracol Universidad de Antioquia Periodistas Culturales And the Premio Cipa, one of the most prestigious of Colombia: El Mundo Noticias Montreal The Montreal Latin Festival, LatinArte, has just appointed him as its official poet, and the Montreal Poetry Festival selected him as the principal poet in Spanish in its past edition: El Mundo El Espectador Montreal Hispano The user Martssnail says that there are no proof Sergio Esteban Velez won the Premio Nacional de Periodismo Simón Bolívar. I invite you to communicate to the office of that award and ask if Velez won the prize in 2010. The website is ([10]). -- Beausejour15 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 25 August 2013

Thanks for the link. In 2010 Maria Elvira Samper Nieto won the Premio Nacional de Periodismo Simón Bolívar.[11] Beside the main prize, I've now learned, there are multiple minor awards. Saying Sergio Esteban Vélez won the Premio Nacional of that year is missleading. If elmundo.com does it it's ok, since they promote their own website. We should not support this. --Martssnail (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Breton article has also been deleted by now. Cathfolant (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And the Italian translation. I've started a cross-wiki deletion log. --Martssnail (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Promotional or non-encyclopedic content: crosswiki spam'. That's a rough translation. Cathfolant (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There may be arguments for keeping this, but I expect it is similar to the first (deleted) version and could conceivably be speedied as recreation of a page deleted per a discussion - have we considered that? Cathfolant (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The deletion discussions here (and here, for those of you who can read Breton; I certainly can't) might prove useful. Cathfolant (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I kindly want to clarify some items the user Martssnail has mentioned. First of all, Vélez really won the Premio Nacional de Periodismo Simón Bolívar. The confusion is due to the fact that that award is given in different categories for various kinds of journalism. They do have prizes in different modalities: Interview, Criticism, Opinion journalism, Investigative journalism and so on. In 2010, María Elvira Samper won in the modality “All a life in journalism” and Sergio Esteban Vélez was awarded for the best interview made in Colombia in that year. It is the same as at the Oscars for films: in that competition, in the same year, there are prizes for many people in different specialties, and all they are called “Oscar winners”.

I am also surprised to learn that you consider that Vélez' resume is not outstanding at all. You should take into account that he has been publishing articles in Colombian newspapers for more than ten years. Although he is still very young (29), he is columnist of one of the most important newspapers of Colombia and he has become one of the most relevant cultural journalists in Colombia. His work in the newspaper El Mundo has made of him an important voice among his people. His resume includes not only his career as a journalist, but also his trajectory as a poet. Still a boy, he had already published three poetry books and he became known as a child prodigy and well known among the intellectuals of Medellin, his city. That fame is alive still today, and regardless of the fact that he is no longer living at his country since several years ago, he continues analyzing and reviewing the important news of culture in Colombia. I have checked many other resumes of Colombian writers and journalists on Wikipedia, and I found that many of them do not show enough notability or that they have less notoriety than Sergio Esteban Vélez has. Thus, I request you to reconsider your opinions --Beausejour15 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beausejour15, of cause there are other articles about writers that are not notable but please take note of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In the four years since 2009 in all 31 Wikipedias it was only one anonymous user, now living in Canada (IP 132.208.73.76), who wrote about this person. So it's pretty obvious why the Spanish Wikipedia deleted the text as "artículo de autopromoción". Sergio Vélez, "actuellement, il habite au Québec", might be a promising young journalist but he is certainly not a famous Columbian writer ("un famós escrivan colombian") as the anonymous user (you?) claims. --Martssnail (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't have any trouble finding sources noting this individual in varying degrees of depth. Seems to be quite notable if not famoso. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've updated the deletion log. This article has been posted in 32 Wikipedias. There have been at least 11 reposts using name variants like "Serhio-Esteban Velez", "Sergio-Esteban Velez-Pelaez" and "Sergio-Esteban Velez P." --Martssnail (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Today, I have updated some of the footnotes, based on the articles I found on the net. Just in the newspaper El Mundo, a reliable source, I found more than 10,000 results about Sergio Esteban Vélez--Beausejour15 (talk)

Wow, so you in a few years you will be as famous as I am: Marts Snai 246.000 Google hints! BTW: The article about El Mundo (Colombia) is a stub started on August 28. It's a local newspaper and website, not to be confused with El Mundo (Spain). Major newspapers of Colombia are El Nuevo Siglo, El Espectador and El Tiempo (Colombia). --Martssnail (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El Mundo is a major newspaper in Medellin and El Nuevo Siglo is a newspaper in Bogota. You won't find a lot of readers of El Nuevo Siglo in Medellin just as you won't find a lot of readers of the Washington Post in Los Angeles. Newspapers tend to be regional and their size is relative to the city they serve. I believe El Mundo, serving Colombia's second largest city, is in fact quite substantial. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's great that you have started an article for this newspaper, but there is still a big difference between a local/regional and a national newspaper. --Martssnail (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The metropolitan area of Medellín is the second largest urban agglomeration in Colombia in terms of population and economy, with more than 3.5 million people. Its region, Antioquia, has a population of almost 7 million people. Saying that a major newspaper of Medellin is not important in Colombia because Medellin is not the capital of the country is like saying that the leading mass media of Barcelona, Munich or Toronto are not relevant in Spain, Germany and Canada. --Beausejour15 (Beausejour15) —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York is not the capital of the US and Munich not the capital of Germany and still major (national) newspapers (New York Times and Süddeutsche Zeitung) are made in this cities. Working as a journalist for a regional newspaper does not meet WP:BIO. --Martssnail (talk) 04:56, 6 September 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) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony D'Souza

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

Non-notability. $oHƎM❊^{আড্ডা} 11:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Signed to an I-League team, but no game appearances yet. Remake it if/when he actually plays. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 13:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below which shows he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This edit removed sources from the article that confirmed Mr D'Souza has played in the I-League, listed as fully professional at WP:FPL, and therefore passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Don't suppose they were removed deliberately, more likely Visual Editor got its own way and the editor didn't know how to fix it. Disappointing that it was missed at WP:BEFORE. I've restored those sources, and added another that confirms Mr D'Souza has played for two previous clubs over at least three seasons in the I-League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changing vote. I didn't notice his appearances for Salgaocar F.C., which puts him over the bar. I only looked at his profile page on the Pune F.C. site. Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Clearly notable. Per above. Suggest nom do a wp:before search before future nominations.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 30 August 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. postdlf (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Nobili

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

Appears to fail WP:NPROF and WP:GNG, due to the lack of any significant work, and the distinct lack of in-depth, non-trivial coverage in independent WP:RS. Tagged as failing GNG for nearly 5 years. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of only 6. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He has a few reasonably well cited publications concerning the cochlea (citation counts 140, 128, 85 in Google scholar); the 85-cite one seems to be omitted from Xxanthippe's count) but not well enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1 (not even in the top 50 publications on this subject). And his impact in cellular automata and other subjects is far below that. None of the other criteria in WP:PROF, nor WP:GNG, seem likely either. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not fulfil any of the criteria set out at WP:ACADEMIC, H-index ~6 according to google scholar from my count, which isn't indicative of someone who is particularly noteworthy, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:00, 30 August 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. postdlf (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Trinity Grammarians SC

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

Non notable amateur club without any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club. Hack (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - very non-notable, local, amateur club. Giant Snowman 16:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not surprised I can't find good coverage for a club playing in the, "sixth tier in Victoria."Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable football club, no evidence provided or found to suggest notability under WP:GNG. Possible Speedy Delete if the content is not different to that deleted after the last discussion. Hack (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - v low level club, no significant coverage to indicate GNG pass. Fenix down (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated this article. There is plenty of significant coverage from independent sources, including The Age and The Herald Sun Newspapers, which are some of the biggest national newspapers in Australia. References added 134.159.131.34 (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, those passing mentions are not significant coverage and appear, along with any mention in the article of VAFA, to refer to a team playing Australian rules football, not soccer, a completely different sport! The-Pope (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - v. low-level non-notable team, and refs added clearly refer to a completely different team (part of the same umbrella organisation?) playing a different sport. One would have thought the headline "Old Trinity scores 102-point thumping over Werribee Districts" would have given it away - it would have been one hell of a soccer game in which one team scored 102!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 30 August 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Italia Sono Tutti Maschi

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

Certainly a nice candidate for being saved, but for now all this article has as a claim of notability is a mention in a BBC picture caption. I cannot find any good sources, through I am getting some hits in Italian that may well be reliable - but will require an Italian speaker to investigate. For now, sadly, this fails WP:Notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be a good deal of secondary source commentary out there. — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, saved by edits by User:FunnyPikatoo. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 28 August 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EurActiv

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

Per my prod I stand by the claim that this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:V (relies primarily on self-refs). Nominator argues on talk that this is not the case, as the website is popular (Alexa rank in ~70000 - I don't think it is), and that it is often used a source by mainstream media (interesting claim, but needs reliable proof). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Piotrus. If kept, this article needs to be re-written from scratch. It's one of those typical self-congratulatory and overblown self-important pieces that many EU-related organisations/publications/research grantees/etc seem to think they have to dump on us. Claims of importance ("more than 675.000 readers") are all sourced to their own website. By the way, did I already tell you that my blog is being read by over 30 million people? Really! It says so itself. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Randykitty. This article does not merit inclusion per notability criteria and per WP:PROMO due to self-citing. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reasons cited here are related to quality, and fall under overzealous deletion. If you think the sources cited on this article aren't good enough, you should first attempt to fix the article before proposing it for deletion. There is no indication on the talk page of this article that any such effort has taken place, where evidence for its use as a source for mainstream media is provided. Betina (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nonsense. None of the editors above argue that this article should be deleted because it is bad. The argument is that there is no notability. That on top of that the article is bad, is not a good reason to keep it, me thinks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Randy, please familiarize yourself with one of the key Wikopedia policies: WP:Notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giant strider

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

This article does not establish notability, and it relies only on primary sources. TTN (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless this can pass our fiction tresholds (coverage by mainstream sources), this should be deleted as a poor fork of [12]. That's what wikia and friends are for. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, according to where consensus is tipping at the end. One thing is sure, with only primary sources the topic fails to establish independent notability per WP:GNG and cannot be kept as a stand-alone.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Web Warlock (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no third party sources to establish independent notability. delete or merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. No real information to salvage other than publications, but that could be added from some of the primary sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per BOZ. Deletion is not a policy-supported outcome per WP:ATD, since a merge target has been identified.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs)

i will note that "keep" is not a policy supported outcome, since no policy has been identified. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:58, 4 September 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. postdlf (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Australian Ballet

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

A possible candidate for saving, there may be reliable sources to establish this company's notability. So far, however, they are not in the article, nor could I quickly find any. As this stands, the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). PS. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Cavallari for a related AFD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most 60 year old state ballet companies are notable. Not everything is on google. Some of these refs would prove notability. The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sixty years is notable for a large-scale arts organization by itself. — Robert Greer (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is quite a substantial account of the company's early years, and this, while far shorter, also contributes to notability. For more recent periods, newspapers seem to give quite a bit of coverage, though it may be rather time-consuming to evaluate it properly - for instance, a review of one of the company's performances can be substantially about the company even if it name-checks the company only once. PWilkinson (talk) 16:36, 31 August 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. postdlf (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids Customise Parts

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a collection of various minute details on a toy line and their corresponding fictional counterparts. There is nothing to establish notability, and the main article already summarizes the main topic. TTN (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless we change our guidelines on notability for fiction, toys and such (which I might support), this article, as present, totally fails notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Transwiki it to some wikia, if some fan wants to save it. There might well be Zoidswikia for all I know... (and if there isn't, there should be). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge somewhere. A toy line launched in 1999 and cancelled in 2001 likely was too minor to have much in the way of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that we can build an article around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 29 August 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awedis (quarterly)

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

As I pointed in the (creator-removed) prod nom, there is no indication of notability for this magazine/website. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not merely a 'local magazine'. First of all, there are many similar Armenian magazines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Armenian-language_newspapers Are all of them not notable? Similarly, there are articles on other national minority magazines in Poland, like "Midrasz". Secondly, it is an important institution of the Armenian Diaspora worldwide, the only one informing on the life of one of the oldest Armenian communities in the world - the Polish Armenian community. Last but not least - it distinguishes from all other Armenian magazines with the prize for the best Armenian diaspora magazine in the world, as described in the article. Scio PL (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument; that other stuff may either be eligible for deletion too, or is better. Second, that's a nice claim for importance - now source it to verifiable, reliable sources rather than your post. Third, governments give a lot of awards, not all of them matter, so what would make this one significant? See Wikipedia:Notability (Awards) for some hints. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have been recognized with an Award for For Notable Contribution to the Preservation of the Armenian Identity, Printed Media category from the Diaspora Media Contest as declared by the Armenian Ministry of Diaspora. — Cirt (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted above: so what? Is this award significant? Has the award or the award ceremony received any significant coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some additional context about this journal, who publishes it, who funds it, can be found here[13] (last paragraph). Additional source[14] Given the small size of the Armenia Polish enclave (though very old) we shouldn't expect to find much in English, and probably not much in Polish either (something this journal is trying to fix). It seems to be an important journal, funded by the Polish government "to educate the Polish public about the role of the Armenians in Poland". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's a worthwhile initiative, but the last time I check we have a policy on Wikipedia:Notability, not Wikipedia:Worthiness of the subject. (On a side note, that article doesn't have a page on pl wiki, where I'd assume it would also be quickly deleted). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually the first paragraph of WP:NOTE says: "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"". It is absolutely our job to determine the worthiness of something to be included on Wikipedia. This is a classic case of a little known, little sourced topic that deserves attention; the notability guidelines allow for little known, little sourced but worthy topics to be included, so long as there is consensus of the worthiness. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have added the links provided by Green Cardamom to the article. Second, yes, the award is very significant. The Armenian Diaspora worldwide publishes dozens of magazines and newspapers, but only this very one was distinguished in the Ministry of Diaspora contest. It is also significant, that it is the ONLY ONE Armenian bilingual magazine in Poland, the country which is famous for its old, distinguished Armenian community. Third, there is no article on Awedis in Polish wiki, because I have not created one yet, but I will do it soon. And I am convinced that it will not be deleted - my experience says so, I am the editor of Polish Wiki since 2006. And last but not least - I beg you pardon Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, but is it only my impression that you seems to be strangely zealous in your attempt to delete this article? Scio PL (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you seem to be strangely zealous in your attempt to have it kept, but I am not holding it against you :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, my motivation, unlike yours, is quite natural, as I created the article. Scio PL (talk) 18:44, 29 August 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walloon SME finance and guarantee company

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

fails WP:ORG. declined prod. hardly anything in gnews for its French name [15]. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. There are some mentions of the organization in printed sources: one in English - Jonathan Potter (1 January 2003). Private Finance and Economic Development: City and Regional Investment. OECD Publishing. pp. 109–. ISBN 978-92-64-10199-9. Retrieved 27 August 2013., more in French - just search Google Books for "Sowalfin". Given that there is something like 20 French mentions, I am going to say this org is probably notable - unless someone can shown me how I am wrong (if so ping me and I'll look at the arguments here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gbooks sources (easily verifiable) as indicated by Phil Bridger and Piotrus. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:10, 28 August 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Temam

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

Withdraw - Now that a source has been shown proving he's on a stamp I would concede notability. Being on a stamp to me gives a high level of notability. Caffeyw (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable artist. Created solely because he's listed in a book of Algerian artists. Caffeyw (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Can't access any sources, but there are a few French language google book hits for his name. I'd like to see a discussion on notability of the sources cited before this goes. Being mentioned in some obscure printed sources may be enough for notability in some cases. PS. Please ping me on talk if any arguments are presented here for my evaluation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those book hits are what I referred to in the nom. The book is simply a listing of Algerian artists as of 2006 and the second book is just an updated version of the first but as of 2011. Caffeyw (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. In this case the issue should be the reliability of the source. For example, I often work with the Polish Biographical Dictionary, and the consensus is that all individual in it are notable - even if our coverage of those topics is currently under 10%. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeyw , he is notable, we add juste references.--Great11 (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps for his memory in Algeria Caffeyw

http://www.wnsstamps.ch/fr/stamps/DZ012.02 look — Preceding unsigned comment added by Great11 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.universes-in-universe.de/islam/fra/2003/03/art-algerien/img-02.html http://www.universes-in-universe.de/islam/fra/2003/03/art-algerien/index.html --Great11 (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)--Great11 (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)--Great11 (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC) look --Great11 (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep.Notable --Great11 (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Peintres algériens, textes d'Edmond Michelet et Mourad Bourboune, Musée des Arts décoratifs de Paris, Paris, 1964.
Mohammed Khadda, Éléments pour un art nouveau, SNED, Alger, 1972 (p. 49).
Musées d'Algérie, l'Art Populaire et Contemporain, Collection Art et Culture, Ministère de L'Information et la Culture, SNED, Alger, 1973.
Mohammed Khadda, Feuillets épars liés, SNED, Alger, 1983.
Dalila Mahhamed-Orfali, Chefs d'œuvre du Musée national des beaux-arts d'Alger, Alger, 1999 (reproduction : L'homme en bleu, n° 79).
Mansour Abrous, Les artistes algériens, Dictionnaire biographique, 1917-1999, Alger, Casbah éditions, 2002 (p. 212-214).
Le 2Oe siècle dans l’art algérien, (textes de Ramon Tio Bellido, Malika Dorbani Bouabdellah, Dalila Mahammad Orfali et Fatma Zohra Zamoum), Château Borély, Marseille / Orangerie du Sénat, Paris, avril-août 2003 ISBN: 2950676812 (p. 34-37 et p. 201-202).

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| , first able we don't have reference in english , it's simple, maybe one or two, and all must books from Algeria, we can not access , but i can tell this is notable but i don't tell you keep the article because he is notable at wikipedia and we keep the article, any article can delete is fundament of wikipedia , there is difference, Caffeyw, he don't understand me i think or i don't understand him, no problem and we can delete this article because is very short and all resource are in french( but it's not reason), i hope if there any one who can translate many article to english. Secondary, listed in a book of Algerian artists give many references like book news papers, etc , it's simple if we want keep or write the article comme on dit en français dommage . Thank you. --Great11 (talk) 07:27, 29 August 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) 07:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Boyco

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks awards, charting, sales, touring, important label, rotation. None of the films he is involved in are notable productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this person; just social networking profiles mostly. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 06:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any coverage by mainstream sources in the article. Ping me if this changes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally assumed that he was notable (I previously nominated his band's article for deletion, which has since been speedied as G7), but a quick Google search failed to find enough reliable, significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:43, 27 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Benyahia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)--Great11 (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources talk about another thing non name of Ahmed Benyahia , i found only one, but Ahmed Benhayia have only one exposition( MENTION OF BOOK GOOGLE),it's not notable --Great11 (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As at Hassane Amraoui, my comments on which I'm assuming are the reason my participation here was solicited, the big problem is the quality of sources. I just checked each one individually, and here's the rundown: two of them don't actually mention Benyahia's name at all, one is a dead or mistyped link whose content I'm unable to verify at all, and a couple just list his name while containing no actual content about him. Only one link leads to an article that actually uses his name in a larger context, and even that one isn't a particularly substantial article. As always I'm willing to reconsider this if stronger sources start showing up, but we're pretty clearly on the delete side of the see-saw here. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i told keep for Hassane Amraoui and i accept the score delete 4 and keep 2 ( no problem), but It is not same thing when I compare the sources Hassane Amraoui 2 pages many expose , museum , gallery, cat, book, news of country , web site, critic of specialist of art and multicultural and philosophy dimension, and writer and poet in Algeria or Tunisia or Montreal) [16] but Ahmed Benyahia only one expose , Why????? [17] PAGE 148 we can consult the difference ( but I have a question he live in France for many years ....probably I can found another expose but the writer have neutrality and he is notable????!!!!!!. i accept the score 4 delete and 2 keep ( no problem). Thank you--Great11 (talk) 05:16, 27 August 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 August 27. Snotbot t • c » 03:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'd like to hear on the reliablity of current printed sources in the article. Being mentioned in the Le livre des peintres algériens: dictionnaire biographique seems like a potential criteria for notability. Ping me if counter arguments are presented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's nothing mentioned about the subject, it's his name in passing. As for any book hits the book is just a listing of Algerian Artists, and the second is just an updated version of the 1st. No notability needed, just have to have painted a picture and be Algerian and you're listed in the book. Caffeyw (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have fixed the ref to La Tribune, (and the bare url which also pointed to it) by finding the original on the wayback machine. It is a substantial article in a reputable newspaper. It is always more difficult to write articles about subjects where the sources are not in English, and probably in Arabic script, rather than Roman script. I'll see what else I can find in due course. I have since added details of his work for UNESCO, with a suitable ref. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIf we have La tribune article is notable ( in Algerai is difficult to acces to news papers in ligne , we have lot problem just to found for municipality you see , i will read that, I want another exposition you can help me and another news papers , we must have 2 minimum i think!!!!!!. he have two graduations, there is another raison possible exclusivity for Musuem of Constantine, we must search for that, In Algeria they are some painters they don't want show or sell self work. Thank you--Great11 (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this no montion of the name http://www.jeune-independant.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=867 --Great11 (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This no name no montion , http://books.google.at/books?id=OnFJAQAAIAAJ&q=Voyages+d'artistes:+Algérie+03&dq=Voyages+d'artistes:+Algérie+03&hl=de&sa=X&ei=HsCzT7LtDZHitQaF1vSTBA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA--Great11 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This or context no name http://www.algeriephilatelie.net/fr_bibliotheque_poste_timbre.php?annee=1964&numero=401#.Uhz5PhYQSQs--Great11 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what your point is here. The article is about a postage stamp, and Ahmed Benyahia is listed as the designer in the details at the bottom of the page. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Le journal l'Indépendant, oui c'est notable disant c'est un artiste engagé et que le texte parle plus de vision du monde, le seul commentaire que je peux relever c'est qu'il a fait une toile sur une pièce de Kateb Yacine. On peut dire c'est un solitaire et le titre le mentionne. Si on veut garder l'article , on doit tout refaire puisque les référence n'ont pas de liens avec l'article. J'ai fait la demande sur wiki français pour supprimer l'article, elle a été vite traitée puisque les références sont en français. I transat For The Independent newspaper, yes it is notable saying it is a committed artist and the text speaks more worldview, the only comment I can take is thathe painting piece of theatre Kateb Yacine. We can say he is a lonely and the title says ( the indépendant). If you want to keep the item, we must redo everything because the reference is not related with the article. I made the demand to remove the French wiki article, it was quickly treated as references are in French --Great11 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is live politic no for painting http://www.vitaminedz.com/prison-du-coudiat-de-constantine/Articles_15688_73702_25_1.html--Great11 (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC) This is good but a blog http://yelles.blog.ca/2013/03/10/le-peintre-atlan-1913-196o-de-constantine-a-paris-ou-la-migration-du-regard-15613150/--Great11 (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) This is goog but is politic, leader ship, etc , http://www.kml-filali.com/tr/component/content/article/56.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Great11 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

google image ahmed benyahia no thing only one picture La tribune , please check with me possible we found any thing --Great11 (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI! Bob1960evens , he is painter , the article must focus for that not for his association to preserve Constantine , it is another thing , we must focus for his work painting , It'is important for notability of the painter , Thank you --Great11 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bob1960 evens, there is another Ahmed Benyahia caligraphe , he is natif from Fès Marocco. Thank you --Great11 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition I think if we change the article and we delete just the category painter we can keep the article. What do you Think for that ? Is it correct in Wikipédia ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Great11 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC) --Great11 (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no need to delete the category painter. Anyone who is notable has influence in other fields, and it is important that we know what else he achieved, in addition to his painting. I have added further details of his life and work based on his entry in the Encyclopedia of Algerian Postage Stamps, which includes him because he designed the stamp for the Algerian International Trade Exhibition in 1964. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good he is notable for this , I keep And I will close the discussion , we have tree thing , Kateb yacine representation and stamps and la Tribune. I keep --Great11 (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3KEEP WE KEEP --Great11 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Great11 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We keep the article--Great11 (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat you accept or no please the decision ? --Great11 (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this process works. There's no obligation for me to accept or not accept anything; our process does not require everyone to be unanimous in favouring a keep or a delete — there just has to be a consensus on one side or the other, there does not have to be 100% agreement. So I don't have to come back and change my argument from "delete" to "keep" — enough other people are convinced that it's keepable that it can be kept whether I revise my original argument or not. There have indeed been sourcing improvements, and the article is thus more legitimately keepable, but you don't need to personally summon me back for added input on whether I accept where the final consensus landed. That said, if you intend to withdraw your nomination given the sourcing improvements, then just say so and it can be closed early on the grounds that it was withdrawn, but that can also happen automatically without needing my personal consent. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Bearcat, Thank you. --Great11 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 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 is redirect to School District of Lee County (Florida). (non-admin closure)Fbryce (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington Middle School

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

As a (rather inactive) member of Wikiproject Schools, I'm all for school articles, but as a general rule of thumb, we don't maintain articles on middle schools unless there's something particularly notable about them, and this article doesn't seem to have much to offer other than directory-like information. I did a web search as well (using search.pch.com), and the most interesting hit on the first two pages was a news article about a student getting arrested (something that happens all the time in the U.S.), so I really don't see enough to justify a Wikipedia article. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District of Lee County (Florida) per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Ansh6 6 6 04:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per arguments above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Nothing notable about the school. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. As a general rule of thumb, that's what we do - as most members of the schools project should know. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus, which I support very much. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above....William 18:08, 27 August 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 Jim Jones discography--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Life 3

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

PROD denied, and a redirect was reverted. This is a non-notable mixtape, and my quest for reviews or other sources was fruitless. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jim Jones discography#Mixtapes. Plausible search term but with only very limited coverage in reliable sources (these [18][19] were the best I could find), an independent article is not warranted as this mixtape does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Gong show 06:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To Jim Jones or Jim Jones discography. Mixtapes are generally not notable per WP:NALBUMS and there is nothing that gives the smallest idea that this is one of the rare notable cases. STATic message me! 23:35, 3 September 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 The Pool of Life. Redirecting to the parent album is the common outcome for non-notable songs. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Love (The Onset song)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Laun chba ller 01:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pool of Life. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Pool of Life. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 10:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to The Pool of Life. Fails WP:NSONG. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:50, 27 August 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.

^ http://blog.ajperez.org/

[1] ttp://blog.ajperez.org/

[1]