Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 December	6 December >

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 delete. SarahStierch (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Blend[edit]

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

An unremarkable website, one of an untold number that comments about movies. The article's references circle back to the website; the one non-Cinema Blend reference is to a blog that appears offline. I don't see much here that meets WP:GNG standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails to provide any specific claims of notability supported by secondary sources. There are only references from the official website with one broken link. Also, fails to meet GNG as I couldn't be able to find any publication with this entity as a main topic. Furthermore, fails to meet WP:WEBCRIT. Hence, the article exists purely as an advertisment. Alex^{discussion ★} 02:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the article, the site was launched in 2001. It's been noted by others,[1][2] http://www.examiner.com/article/cast-and-director-marc-webb-break-down-the-amazing-spider-man-2-trailer although that fact obviously doesn't equate to meeting the notability requirements. -- Trevj (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment - The Slate citation is merely a reposting of a video that was on Cinema Blend. Examiner.com is a self-publishing site, and I don't think FilmEquals.com is a reliable site, as per Wikipedia requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Examiner.com is blacklisted. The other sites didn't strike me as being especially reliable but I thought they might be worth noting, as a record of the (poor) quality of references found. Maybe some better ones will be unearthed, but it seems as if that's not very likely. -- Trevj (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fixed the ref to amctv.com. The editor, Josh Tyler, got some notoriety for comments characterized as sexist by Comics Beat and Publisher's Weekly, but that seems to be more about the founder than his site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Examiner is not a reliable source, nor is an AMC blog. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEBCRIT. We've all searched for sources and found them to be insufficient to demonstrate notability. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:10, 11 December 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stab-Lok[edit]

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

WP:GNG? Müdigkeit (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was nominated here only 4 mins after creation. I have added a first reference. I am unconvinced that the product is notable, but it does no harm to use maintenance tags to point out what it is lacking in terms of evidence of notability, helping a relatively sporadic editor, rather than move straight to AfD. AllyD (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right.--Müdigkeit (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Let's not pull the trigger so fast. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this article[3] about problems with this particular type of circuit breaker. I realize that's not sufficient for an article, and the current article is unacceptable and fails GNG, this suggests that the article may be rescuable as other sources may be out there. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see that the article already has a source indicating problems with this type of circuit breaker. Therefore, given that there are multiple independent secondary sources with the above source added, I think that the article passes GNG, but only if the notability is tied directly to the hazards presented by this circuit breaker. The article will require a rewrite to turn it from an advertisement into a proper article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:40, 7 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Electric[edit]

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

No coverage in independent sources, fails WP:CORP. Jinkinson talk to me 21:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nominated 5" after creation. Dloh cierekim 21:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regretfully. While it's arguable that a fine, old, "Made in USA" company like this should be covered by secondary sources and should have its own Wikipedia article, it has no coverage and must be deleted. By the way, I searched Google News and, remarkably, found only a couple of incidental mentions. I'm assuming this is the Connecticut Electric that is based in Meriden, as the article (oddly) doesn't give its headquarters location or actually say much of anything about this company.Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company's website indicates it is based in Indiana and has a manufacturing facility in Mexico, so forget what I said about "Made in USA." Delete still stands, zero coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTINHERITED. Utilities are almost always notable, but their vendors are usually not. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 9 December 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 Red Ahead (CTA). Merge away! SarahStierch (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

103rd (CTA station)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:

Article is about a proposed station of the Red Ahead (CTA) project in the very early planning stages, and it is not definite that it will actually be built or even designed. It is not appropriate to have an article at this time, as it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Red Ahead (CTA). Even if there's some coverage talking about the proposed stations as separate from the overall project, whether supportive or critical, that can and probably should be covered within the general scope of Red Ahead. I'm not aware of a specific policy or guideline about transit stations, but I think even in the presence of a guideline that permits articles on proposed transit stations, these should be subsumed within the discussion of the entire expansion project unless and until there is substantial controversy focusing on one of these as a special focus of controversy per WP:GNG and its underlying policy concerns. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Ahead (CTA). I don't think the Red Line extension won't be built at all because the CTA is focused on other projects like the Cermak–McCormick Place and Washington/Wabash projects and the Red Line extension will cost $1 billion to build and the CTA does not have that money. 12.168.128.77 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before people decry this editor's rationale as irrelevant given WP:V, let me suggest that it's essentially echoing the policy considerations in WP:XBALL. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Transit stations are almost always individually notable, but proposed ones are not automatically so. At this point in time the proposals are not firm enough for there to be sufficient encyclopaedic information on the individual stations for us to write an article about each of them. This may change in future, and if it does this discussion should not prejudice a future resplitting if the volume of information warrants it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 11 December 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM namely because independent, reliable sources have not written about this film. It's only subject to review by ufologist and conspiracy theorists who are both unreliable and essentially connected to the filmmaker, Steven M. Greer. jps (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect to Steven_M._Greer#Sirius. There is some coverage out there, but it's predominantly pre-release. I can't really find a lot out there that wouldn't be considered a fringe (ie unreliable source) website by Wikipedia's standards. There's enough pre coverage that this might be considered to pass, although I am worried that they don't really show a huge depth of coverage. I'd be a little more happy with a redirect to a subsection in Greer's article, as I merged some of the material from the film article and the "controversy" section into one section about the film. If we do decide to redirect, I'd argue for the history to be kept in case more coverage comes in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to solid keep. I managed to find two RS reviews amidst the scores of non-usable reviews. It's not a huge amount of coverage, but it doesn't need to be and it's enough for it to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)
Looks like finding those two reviews opened the floodgates- I now have an additional two reviews and a few more articles covering the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic per Tokyogirl79's findings. Nice work! Erik (talk | contribs) 05:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even a simple google search shows it's been covered in the trade press and other places.Mattnad (talk) 14:39, 7 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tushaus Computer Services[edit]

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

Although this article does have a few cites (and a few more are apparent in a GNews search), the subject appears to be a relatively run-of-the-mill computer service provider and insufficiently notable to have an article. The article is highly promotional in tone. It's also out of date, although that would not be an argument for deletion if the article were otherwise worth saving: per [4] this company was sold in 2011 to another Wisconsin company called Dedicated Computing. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like an unremarkable local business, with references being routine coverage. — daranz [ t ] 13:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication from the article as to why this company would be notable. I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources to attest to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 11 December 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 and salted by Ponyo per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 21:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sons Of Savages MC[edit]

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

Two-sentence article without sources, no indication of significance (WP:GNG). AfD necessary because anon editor rejected PROD without comment. Brianhe (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no references to establish Notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why was this not speedied? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable - it had been prodded but this was removed by an IP - whether this IP was also the article creator requires a checkuser. Arjayay (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete no assertion of notability, no sources provided, no sources found. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable organisation.-gadfium 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please salt Sons Of Savages MC, Son Of Savages MC New Zealand, Son Of Savages MC New Zealand and world wide, Sons of Savages, Sons of Savages Motorcycle Club, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I IAR deleted the article as there was no assertion of importance made whatsoever, and given the ridiculous legal threats made via WP:UTRS I have salted both article titles to help mitigate the inevitable future disruption as well.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:35, 5 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Muscle[edit]

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

No indication of notability or reliable sources. Being a muscle guy does not qualify you for inclusion. Rcsprinter (post) @ 19:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't usually !vote keep on things like this, but in this case I'd like to see if his new book gets some critical notice. Agree that there's no significant coverage at present other than blogs, reddit, and the like. I guess the right solution is to userfy it until the commentary happens. — Brianhe (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Improper citations. Text are directly lifted from sources and are not in quotes. Agree with deletion. Simply cut and paste from refs. RobertMem (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)RoberMem[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 11 December 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 Adaminte Makan Abu#Reception. Any material worth merging is still available from the article history (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response to Adaminte Makan Abu[edit]

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

Article's content already exists at Adaminte Makan Abu#Reception. No need to have a content fork of that section in its own article. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't it boldly redirected? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this with the main article.
Anish Viswa 05:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is also orphaned, so I don't see a need to redirect it. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Also i doubt anyone would bother searching "Critical response to...". Forget the non-regulars, but even regulars to Wikipedia would look for "Accolades received by..." or "List of awards and nominations received by..." kinda format. Deleteing without redirect is also fine. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus skimming through the view stats I couldn't find more than 30 views on any given day. Most days had less than 10 views. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Redirects are cheap, and if it helps some people, why not? I have no prejudice against deleting if there is consensus for that as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article Adaminte Makan Abu. Salih (talk) 04:21, 7 December 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 Just-Eat. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JUST EAT India[edit]

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

JUST EAT India is "just" a branch of Just Eat. According to the notability guideline for organizations, branch offices should only be considered under specific circumstances and are generally discouraged; see WP:BRANCH. The references in the article show not much independent notability; many links about just eat in general; none outside the focus area of the local organization L.tak (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:PRESERVE, perhaps a merge to Just-Eat should occur, rather than blanket deletion of the content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to Just-Eat. Content should be edited down so as not to give the India branch undue weight in the main article. Ibadibam (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Just-Eat, per my comment above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(nominator's comment) I am not against a selective merge;especially taking into account the undue weight-comment by Ibadibam. I suppose it will be a short heading about India (as they started out as their own company)... L.tak (talk) 09:24, 10 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SSF (emulator)[edit]

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

This article was redirected to List of video game emulators a few weeks ago, and the redirect was reverted today by an IP editor who gave no reason or edit summary. As an emulator, it has failed to receive coverage in reliable sources and fails to meet the general notability guideline. A Google search turned up only a few fan sites for it, but nothing to indicate any coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG with in-depth reliable sources. I see primary and non-in-depth ones only. Here's a non-affiliated review, but non-reliable source. Beyond that, it's all tutorials and listing/directory entries. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is right. This article does not establish its notability. The article only introduces a RacketBoy review (RacketBoy? I hope it's not a boy that engages in racketeering) but that's far from significant coverage. So, deleting, merging or magically fixing notability? Whichever sails your boat. Fleet Command (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 7 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Records[edit]

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

Article is not notable according to WP:MN QMajor (talk) 16:20, 5 December 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 December 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I respectfully challenge the AfD proposal for Diamond Records without explanation and despite the citations and the hits the label had. I have a feeling that this is a nuisance proposal as the proposal was created by a newbie who created his/her WP account before starting the AfD proposal as you can see from [5]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although one might question the Angelfire-hosted webpage cited in the footnotes, the article also has multiple reliable sources from Billboard, and the company had enough of a track record to suggest that it was indeed notable. I note that the label founder, Joe Kolsky, is mentioned as a "legendary heavyweight" in a book about Elvis [6]; and according to the visible part of his Newsbank-paywalled Miami Herald obit [7] he later came out of retirement to manage 2 Live Crew, so he might be a reasonable subject for his own bio, if someone has access to the appropriate sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [8], [9], [10] represent coverage found from Billboard. Given that the label formed and ceased before the advent of the online internet era, I suspect more offline sources exist. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 11 December 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 Willy_Wonka_&_the_Chocolate_Factory#Cast. SarahStierch (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Borgstaller[edit]

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

According to IMDb, this actor played in only one film (Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory) and even that appearance is uncredited. I think he clearly fails WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Willy_Wonka_&_the_Chocolate_Factory#Cast. The film had a lot of uncredited actors and this is covered in the cast section, where Borgstaller is briefly mentioned as an Ooompa Loompa. I think that's about the extent of what we need for him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Willy_Wonka_&_the_Chocolate_Factory#Cast. He wasn't in anything else on IMDB. There's also a speedy delete up for another oompa loompa actor created [by the same guy] Neonchameleon (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note as nominator: I'm fine with the idea of a redirect. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 5 December 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 Has been speedied. Peridon (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaap Verduijn's Odu Ifa Collection[edit]

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

I can't see any evidence that this self-published [11] collection is notable. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dougweller,

I (Brenda Beek) am one of the publishers, so far we have only published the first volume. The website Ejiogbe where you refer to is to be deleted, I am building a new webpage around that book and more on www.ifalution.com, but it's not finished yet. So far my teacher Jaap Verduijn has his official page on www.iledafa.com. The ISBN number of the first book is 978-1-304-61741-5, and it can be purchased on Lulu.com, check the link via ww.iledafa.com, I can't seem to paste the lulu.com links here, the ISBN number (for free) however comes from Lulu.com, they provide selfpublisher services.

I have created my account under Ifalution. Ifa Divination is considered to be part of a religious system like Ifa, Lukumi, Santeria, Vodoun. However there is a hell of a lot abuse going on in that community in established religious houses. This goes from sexual abuse to people who get financially ripped. Like with many spiritual organizations, also Ifa can be an ideal formula to build your sect upon and around. Which in some parts of the world, especially the American Disaspora happens more than you would belief; 80% of the people we meet somehow have been dealing with it.

Jaap and myself are not part of any religious organization, however we do use the Ifa Oracle and Ifa teachings to enrich our lives. We call ourselves Independent Ifa Practitioners; we're mainly active on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/independent.ifa.orisha.practitioners/ and https://www.facebook.com/ifalution). Although we are hated by many people in the worldwide Ifa community, especially by abusing priests, because we share secrets, that originally never were secrets at all, otherwise we ourselves could never have known them. Most of the secrets are available in a decent (university) library. Thus we make people wiser than they are. We know there is a hell of a lot abuse because in the end many people seek refuge for our help, mainly because we are not part of the religious Ifa crowd. To be frankly, I love to work with Ifa, it is very helpful and it really does something, but what happens around it, pains my heart.

One of the strong tools, abusers use is isolation, forbidding people to read books, listen to others. We, on request of Ifa, started Ile Dafa, Ifalution and are publishing Jaap's Odu Ifa Collection. This way people can have access to those divination verses. The verses are all illustrated to make interpretation much easier, in the end those verses are the most important of the practice and will give people self-empowerment, because they can start divining for themselves.

My teacher, Jaap, has been in a 15 year long discussion with the religious crowd who claim you can't divine without initiation, however we are the living proof that is not true, nevertheless I'm afraid this will be a never ending discussion. So I'm not planning to partake in that discussion myself, however one cannot avoid it always either. For us it is important that people have the chance to think for themselves, so we provide the tools for that. I can understand that you may have the idea this is all advertising for ourselves, or whatever. However this is not the reason why I put this stuff on wikipedia, my interest is to help stopping the abuse; I'm mainly motivated to do this due to my own life experience.

It is very very important that people will have low-profile access to some level of knowledge, so they can protect themselves from being abused. I, for that reason, put all those odu signal combinations up there, because I know from experience that people will be looking for that and thus will easier come in touch with a way to enrich themselves without anybody needing to know they did, if you know what I mean.

I promise I will make this article more complete than it is now, there is much more input that I can put up there. I just need to put some things together with my teacher Jaap, he, however is almost 70 and pretty autistic, so some things take a little more time. I have also planned to provide some more articles to support all this. I will complete them before putting them online and be a little less spontaneous ;-).

I sincerely hope for all the before mentioned, that you will NOT delete the article. I know it seems unimportant to a lay-man, but actually it is much more important than it looks like.

Kind regards and looking forward to your replies,

Brenda Beek (Ifalution) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifalution (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda, the problem is that you have to show that the series is ultimately notable by showing coverage in reliable sources. I can't see where this series has received that coverage and we can't keep things that fail notability guidelines, regardless of how beneficial you think the series is or how noble your intents might otherwise be. While Wikipedia's intent is to spread information, the information must already be notable before it should be added to Wikipedia- not the other way around. As nice as it would be to keep articles based upon the idea that it would do not harm, that it would be a kindness to keep it, or so on... that's not what Wikipedia is for. There's also the problem that the page slightly comes across as you trying to promote the collection. This might not have been your intent, but that's how it comes across. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, you can edit on things that you can source the notability for. The only thing is that the sources must absolutely pass our guidelines for sources. I would recommend that you not use any of the sources that you or your partner have self-published, as we have no way of guaranteeing the fact checking or otherwise verifying any of the data. Sources such as this one would be usable as a reliable source because since it was published by a trusted university publisher, they have a pretty high editorial guideline. Given that you are such a new user, I would highly recommend that you look into getting someone to take you under their wing and show you the guidelines here on Wikipedia. Asking around on applicable WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Yoruba or Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion is a good place to start. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish you both well, Brenda, but this collection just isn't notable enough for inclusion. Don't take this badly- most self-published books do not pass notability guidelines, nor do a vast majority of even the books published through the mainstream publishers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At £13.42 for a 120 page paperback, I can't see great sales - especially as the whole set will come to £214.72 if the pricing for Vol 2 onward is the same, and not allowing for inflation. I can't see any notability in a quick Google search. I can see a considerable amount of posting by 'Jaap Verduijn' on forums, social media etc. As Tg79 says, self-published in most cases equals non-notable. Not that publication be a main-stream house necessarily means notable, but it does usually mean that the publication has been edited professionally, and that there will be far more chance of outside sources because of the publicity generated by the publisher. Self-publishing means that at lulu and some others, you get a page on their site. Getting on Amazon is easy, and doesn't count for notability. After that, you're on your own. And Wikipedia is one of the first places people come to to get their book known. But that's not what we are here for. If it becomes notable, we'll happily list it. Until then, it's the author's job to get it notable. Peridon (talk) 17:31, 7 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OWJ[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a relatively new website. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. - Mr X 13:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party coverage or sourcing to demonstrate that this passes even the basic WP:GNG criteria, and this is possibly a speedy deletion candidate since it does not appear to even make any assertions of notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of attained notability; as suggested by DAJF this could be a CSD A7 candidate. AllyD (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in any independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:14, 11 December 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 Gamera vs. Gyaos. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gyaos[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Gamera vs. Gyaos through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gamera vs. Gyaos. There are a lot of Google Books hits, but they seem to be trivial mentions. If someone can come up with some citations (perhaps in Japanese?), I see no reason why this can't be recreated, but I'm not seeing evidence of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 20 November 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, L Faraone 05:53, 26 November 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, buff bills 7701 12:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gamera vs. Gyaos. If no one here is willing to do the merge, then count this as Keep. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:04, 6 December 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 Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Tahoe[edit]

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

non-notable fictional character. No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of this minor fictional character. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Merge any relevant content to its parent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters per WP:CHEAP. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 4 December 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, buff bills 7701 12:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters or delete. Not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:58, 7 December 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 Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Oswald[edit]

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

non-notable minor fictional character. No independent reliable sources suggest the charatcer is notable and there is no sourced information to merge anywhere (also not a plausible search term). Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, merge any content, if relevant, to its parent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters per WP:CHEAP. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 4 December 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, buff bills 7701 12:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters or delete. Again, not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:59, 7 December 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 Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters. postdlf (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Kenwright[edit]

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

non-notable fictional character. No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of the character apart from the fiction in which she appears. She is already covered in adequate detail in other articles related to the series and the existence of real possibly notable people of the same name make redirecting problematic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If any content is useful, merge with parent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters per WP:CHEAP. --BDD (talk) 22:26, 4 December 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, buff bills 7701 12:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters or delete. Same as the others: not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:00, 7 December 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) 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forsyth–Edwards Expanded Notation[edit]

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

No apparent notability and no evidence actually in use. For those searching for sources, please note this is not connected with the notable Forsyth–Edwards Notation. It is connected with the Portable Chess Notation by the same author, also up for deletion, to which the same confusion exists with the notable Portable Game Notation. Spinning Spark 10:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - at best it appears no more than a minor variant on Forsyth–Edwards Notation. It might make a paragraph there if there's evidence it's actually notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only links are to a description website that may have originated with the developer. If that is all their is, and it has not received any coverage, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. No merge or mentioning is needed unless evidence of the data format being utilized can be found. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use seems to be very limited. The only references are to the creator's website and the article seems to have been written by the creator. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Forsyth-Edwards Notation. Fails GNG and all of the above. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. Cobblet (talk) 21:21, 6 December 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. Userfied and informed the editor here. SarahStierch (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Research Paper Writing[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator. Concern was: Original research. Although referenced, this article in itself reads like a research or assignment paper and a 'How to'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, salvage whatever is usable, then delete. The bulk of this article fails WP:NOTHOWTO to the extent that a simple merge is unwarranted, but there are some refs here that mights be useful. Research paper is a disambig page, and the most relevant link from there, Academic paper#Scholarly paper is just two paragraphs long so we could use some additional content in the correct locations and in a more encyclopedic tone. Maybe there is an opportunity to re-create the redirect with possibilities at Academic paper? VQuakr (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irredeemable... --Randykitty (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per WP:CHEAP and Vquakr. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 9 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selwyn Tepania-Wellington[edit]

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

known only for making a youtube video. google of his name returns 20 hits. Not notable. noq (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

888 google hits...but i get your point. :)Sports port (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At best a case of Wp:BLP1E - and I don't even think they reach that bar. Delete Neonchameleon (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeh...Keep. that didnt take a genius to guess! my reasoning?! I see it as similar to Nek minnit in that they are both culturally notable viral kiwi videos parodied by many people & i think selwnyns ship has more to travel yet. no im not his publicist! :)Sports port (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, someone who got brief coverage for a YouTube video, and nothing since.-gadfium 04:37, 11 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topological computing[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP editor 121.45.223.38, who wrote "In my assessment, it is a crank article with no independent citations. I am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 09:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Can anyone please clarify why a field that relies on Maxwell and so is presumably based on geometry (i.e. distance and angle are crucial) is being described as "topology" (relative sequence is important, but geometrical alignment is ignorable)? This sort of elastic use of well-defined terms is a classic sign of psychoceramic theorising. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks either like a crank article or as if someone is trying to split off a subset of Quantum Computing. Soft Delete as I am no expert in the field. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this topic is encyclopedic and it should be deleted as it is certainly not a mainstream computing research area and, as far as I can tell, the applications to computing of the described methods are hypothesised by only one or two authors: V. I. Gvozdev and G. A. Kouzaev, Topological computer, Computers and People, 1, pp. 2–5, 1992 is the only directly relevant reference given. A literature search on Google books and scholar.google.com reveals only a couple of self-references by GA Kouzaev. (Note that there is a topic Topological quantum computer, referred to in the article, which is quite different and does appear to have a substantial independent research literature and research community.) Also, the comments to this article over the last several years draw the same conclusion- for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.159.68 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only relevant citations seems to be those by V.I. Gvozdev and G.A. Kouzaev. All others look like red herrings. Doesn't pass the smell test. —Ruud 16:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meaningless buzzword soup, given a little flavor by occasional name-dropping. Not even wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is, in my opinion, possible (that is, "not impossible") that there might, someday, long in the future, be such circuitry developed. Actual research might discover such, and development produce such. Until at least the first, this is a pipe dream. htom (talk) 00:10, 9 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Michael Preuss[edit]

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

Not notable as an artist. The article is just one big quote of his own words about himself. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be WP:AUTOBIO according to the main contributor's talk page - relevant diff. Both the page creator and the main contributor have only contributed on that subject. Delete Neonchameleon (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article from a COI author.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:05, 5 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Douvall[edit]

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

Article is a biography about someone who is not notable. I can only find sensationalist tabloid articles about the subject Racklever (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:BLP and WP:NOTINHERITED. This is a clearly NN person who may or may not have had a relationship with a famous person. There are zero reliable sources on Google News. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She might be a bit of a gossipy plastic surgery goddess but there's a ton of reliable secondary sources about her and she's on a number of reality shows and has been featured on TV plenty of times. Keep improve expand. SarahStierch (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know who gutted prior sources, but there are many of them out there. Yes, she's not notable for anything like winning a nobel prize, or playing one game of premier league football in 1972, but she's notable under WP:GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is, in fact, notable. This article could easily be expanded. Google does actually provide several reliable sources for her, not just tabloids. While the most recent talk of her is about plastic surgery, if one dives deeper they can find coverage of her work on reality TV shows. As it is, this article is still in need of immediate attention. TCMemoire (talk) 19:03, 14 December 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 deletion per CSD A7 and G11: article about an insignificant person created by a promotional account. De728631 (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brannon McLeod[edit]

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

Non-notable musician lacking ghits and Gnews for substance. Reference is trivial. reddogsix (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:MUSIC. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:04, 5 December 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. G4 Jujutacular (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus D[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG and also easily fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 02:57, 5 December 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. Improve away please! SarahStierch (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, Pet Goat II[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM notability. - Mr X 02:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The film's awards need citation and articles at Cartoon Brew, R.A.W.W. Scoop, Short of the Week, Motionographer, Media Roots, Sabotage Times and others are nice, but short films always have a larger hurdle to meet when competing for notability against the big budget, studio blockbusters. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The sources linked to by Gene93k clearly display sufficient notability for this bizarre short film. Someone should eventually work them into the article as references, but I'll add them as external links for now, so that they are more visible for future editors. --Jpcase (talk) 01:32, 9 December 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) 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary dating[edit]

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

Still no reliable sources since last AfD: neologism, original research Jonathunder (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to see where this article is going. Fxm12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has gone absolutely nowhere in the last year. Where do you think it can go? Tell you what: I'll change my !vote to keep if you can make it go somewhere encyclopedic with reliable, independent sources. Right now, we've got an about.com link and a blurb from a self-published book. Jonathunder (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's really more of a dictionary definition. Missionary dating exists of course but there are no sources cited which give it substantial coverage. The Bible quotes are not about dating, and were put in the article by original research -- as the article itself admits. ("Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 7 could be interpreted to protect this practice.") Wiktionary yes, and a line or two in Dating and/or Religious conversion would be fine. Not enough material for an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [12] is about missionary dating. 212.225.174.69 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But comments by a reader are not a very reliable source. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[13] also treats the topic of missionary dating. Not that about.com is a reliable source, but it establishes the interest on the topic. The other 23.000.000 hits on google prove that it is at least a recurring topic around Christians. Many web-sites treat the topic seriously. 212.225.174.69 (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and incubate. This is exactly what incubation is for. De Guerre (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sending the article to incubation is, of course, subject to WP:AI?, and in particular, having someone willing to work on it. That person is not me. De Guerre (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marital conversion per the suggestions at the previous AFD. Anything with millions of Google hits is a likely search topic; I ended up at the article because I wondered what, if anything, we had on the topic. Since (pre)marital conversion is the goal of missionary dating, they're sufficiently closely related to justify a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't in on the previous AfD, but Marital conversion doesn't appear to be the same thing, and the AfD admitted as such. It's only a related topic, not a subtopic. De Guerre (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. AfD is not meant to be the place to advertise articles for incubation, or rescue, or fixing. This stub, while terribly sourced, has many potential sources. Eventually it will get fixed. For what it's worth, it does not seem to be that new of a phrase; WP:NEO is meant for stuff made up last Monday. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Nomination smacks of impatience with improvement. --BDD (talk) 23:15, 4 December 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) 02:25, 5 December 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) 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Museum for Northern Peoples[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a small, relatively new museum. I am unable to find any sources that discuss the museum in depth. Unless some good sources can be found, the subject seems to fails WP:ORGDEPTH. I originally nominated it for CSD#A7, but another editor objected. - Mr X 02:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 02:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the Norwegian name from the no.wikipedia article, Samtidsmuseet for nordlige folk, I was able to find substantial news and other coverage. I've expanded the article a bit and added several references. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking for sources. As far as I can tell, none of the sources that you added really discuss the subject at any length, and some are mere mentions. Only two would be considered reliable publications ([14] and [15]). - Mr X 04:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Yngvadottir. Can't see any good reason to delete a verifiable and verified museum article like this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 27 November 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) 02:24, 5 December 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) 22:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Rebellion[edit]

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

Too green for an encyclopedia article, team established this month hasn't even played yet and it would play only next year. Alex^{discussion ★} 02:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A new team appearing in a professional softball league. buff bills 7701 12:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a new team appearing in a professional sports league. Not out of line at all for the way this type of situation is normally handled. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:29, 2 December 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) 02:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A women's new team appearing in a professional sports league should be kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep currently it is only just notable, bordering on wp:CRYSTAL, but there's just enough so far for that to not apply. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:45, 5 December 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) 22:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Manners[edit]

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

Single line stub for an actor (who I did actually see once at the Watford Palace Theatre) who only has three very minor television credits. Theatre work doesn't establish notability, seemingly minor roles/productions there too. HornetMike (talk) 21:50, 26 November 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 November 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete -- She does not seem to achieved enough to be notable yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 2 December 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) 02:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't quite reached notability. Some mentions in reviews, but no in-depth coverage. And doesn't seem to have had the multiple major roles to meet WP:NACTOR: no leading roles on stage, and not originated any well-known roles in any notable plays. Even the Vera Brittain role was playing dramatised scenes in a longer program with extensive documentary content, rather than a pure drama. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UPANDCOMING, due to her speculative future career. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 9 December 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) 22:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chih-Kong Ken Yang[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF Derek Andrews (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. Decent GS h-index in highly cited field and Fellow of IEEE. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment 321 members were elevated to Fellow in 2011,[16] and there are over 6000 in total [17]. --Derek Andrews (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF explicitly states that IEEE fellowship meets criterion 3 of the guideline. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the IEEE Fellow (which should be enough by itself) Google scholar lists 6 papers with over 100 citations each and an h-index of about 22, enough for a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 27 November 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) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Article does not assert notability or explain what he has accomplished. Reads like your average professor bio. Needs some cleanup. On the other hand, he explicitly passes WP:PROF#C3 criteria. But WP:PROF is only a guideline, not a rule. Maybe we should edit it, if IEEE starts to have too many Fellows? In my opinion, contra David Eppstein, six >100 cited papers and h-index of 22 does NOT meet the WP:PROF#C1. Most professors have that. C1 asks for significant contributions to academic field, not just designing 20 different CMOS amplifiers with slightly different characteristics and writing papers about them. Hmm, this is starting to get difficult... inclining to keep camp, but only barely. jni (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"six >100 cited papers and h-index of 22 does NOT meet the WP:PROF#C1. Most professors have that." Please provide evidence that this is the case. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I can't be bothered to do a detailed statistical analysis :) Reading PROF#C1 makes it clear the guideline seems to seek some kind of inpact to the field and it explicitly says that big pile of papers does not count alone. When I nominated Vasilis Kostakos to deletion I checked the h-indexes of about a dozen of his colleagues from same institute he is working and found several junior professors with only few papers having h-index around 25. 25 > 22! I know h-index varies between academic disciplines but for EE I'd expect it to be somewhat comparable with computer science. And this guy has just a pile of papers, no other evidence for notability.

You will find much discussion of these matters in the archives of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 9 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Railways Cup[edit]

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

PROD removed with the reason of "good known tournament, plz start a full discussion." I disagree, and believe the original PROD rationale of "non-notable friendly competition, not significantly covered in reliable sources" remains valid. Giant Snowman 12:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Annual friendly tournament. Similar notability as for other 2013 friendly tournaments. NickSt (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 18:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EANP. NickSt (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding this tournament very difficult to find English source. But are you able to find in other languages. There may be problems with this article is just a name. For example: European Railways Cup or European Railworks Cup or International Sports railway workers’ Union Cup or the Cup of the European Sport Union of Railway Workers and other names... ►Cekli 829 20:00, 28 November 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) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - This article does not establish notability, and has no credible claim for notability. If sources in other languages can be found, they should be added to the article - if no non-English sources and/or offline sources can be found, then the article should be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:22, 6 December 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 all. The people arguing keep had three weeks on bringing significant coverage in either this debate or the article that makes the parent article meet WP:GNG, but didn't bother. Secret ^account 14:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Match World Cup[edit]

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

PROD removed with the reason of "good known tournament, plz start a full discussion." I disagree, and believe the original PROD rationale of "non-notable friendly competition, not significantly covered in reliable sources" remains valid. Giant Snowman 13:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. No reason to delete this article. Big coverage in Russian/Ukrainian media. Usual annual tournament with strong clubs participating. Similar notability as for other 2013 friendly tournaments. NickSt (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where is this significant coverage? GiantSnowman 18:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EANP. Links are in the related articles. Normal coverage not different from another supercups/tournaments. NickSt (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - non-notable friendly competition. Season articles in contravention of WP:NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable tournament with many links. 178.93.236.79 (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A tournament getting a big amount of coverage in the countries which participate in it. 176.26.247.147 (talk) 08:20, 4 December 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) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the parent article, but Redirect or Delete the season-articles. All of the information that is presented in these four articles can easily be presented in one article, and there is no real need for the three WP:SPINOFF articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning to delete on main article. There may be significant coverage – i.e. something rather more than match reports – in languages I don't read without assistance, but no-one here has yet come up with links to any. The case for keeping such articles would be much stronger if people who can readily access this big amount of coverage would use it to add some solid content to the article (not just more tables and pictures of national flags). There are currently no external links in the article other than the competition's website and that of its sponsor. Delete the season pages. We don't need individual pages for a few football results. If the main article is kept, merge anything useful from the season pages, but please not all the footballboxes with their endless strings of names of penalty-shootout participants. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the season articles as a starting point, but could see if there's enough reliable sources in them to help warrant an overall t'ment article.Eldumpo (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what you mean is delete the season pages, but Keep the article? Just to make it clear. 94.13.108.100 (talk) 10:14, 14 December 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 for parent article delete seasons. unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Match World Cup, there is evidence provided by the keep voters that this might meet notability guidelines. Secret ^account 14:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Tournament[edit]

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

PROD removed with the reason of "good known tournament, plz start a full discussion." I disagree, and believe the original PROD rationale of "non-notable friendly competition, not significantly covered in reliable sources" remains valid. Giant Snowman 13:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. No reason to delete this article. Big coverage in Russian/Ukrainian media, not only in sports media, for example see [18] [19] [20] (congratulations from President of Ukraine) etc (many links in the articles). Best clubs of the leagues took part in it. Potentially impact to create the United Russia-Ukraine league in future [21]. Similar notability as for other 2013 friendly tournaments. NickSt (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and where is the significant (i.e. non-WP:ROUTINE) coverage? Giant Snowman 18:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EANP. See above and many links in the article. Normal coverage not different from another supercups. Ukrainian Super Cup and Russian Super Cup have the same level of prestige. NickSt (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important tournament getting huge coverage in the CIS. I think definitely deserves an article. It's not just a random friendly tournament, it carries a lot of weight with it. 176.26.247.147 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you evidence that by showing significant coverage in reliable sources? Giant Snowman 20:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user writing above already gave you a lot of notable links, so I will not waste my time on that. I will give you that: [22]. It's a "tag" on the biggest Russian sports website dedicated to the tournament, where you can see how many news are posted about it and how many comments those news receive on the website. 176.26.247.147 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable friendly tournament. The closing admin should have a look at the contributions of the IPs, as to me they look like obvious meatpuppets (both appeared to comment on AfDs regarding friendly tournaments). Number 5 7 13:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The General Director of Zenit said he hopes the tournament will be a proto-type to a union between the Russian and Ukrainian championships[23]. The prize fund is 1 million Euro, which is a lot[24]. 176.26.247.147 (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many reliable sources, notable tournament. 178.93.236.79 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 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) 02:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Is this article really nominated? Its a tournament which get sa huge amount of coverage and is clearly a big topic in thr CIS. Thats even before mentioning the fact the organizers are the same guys who are in charge of the united championship between Russia and Ukraine proposal. Thats obviously a more important tournament than all those friendly tournaments in Spain which are not nominated, and even more than the Anglo Italian cup, because it didnt carry the context of uniting the two championships. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point! That tournament is definitely more important then the Anglo-Italian Cup, the [Anglo-Scottish Cup]], the Audi Cup and the Premier League Asia Trophy, and DEFINITELY more important than the Telekom Cup, Trofeo Santiago Bernabéu and the Joan Gamper Trophy. I smell an anti-East European bias in those nominations to be honest. 176.26.247.147 (talk) 18:26, 5 December 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) 18:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Essentials (TCM)[edit]

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

Independent reliable sources do not establish the notability of this series. What sources there are consist of routine casting announcements and little else. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regular program about film on a channel which has few regular programs outside of continuous film airings. I'll try to find some sources but this certainly is a notable program among film lovers at the very least. Nate • (chatter) 08:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer up the reliable sources that establish the notability of this program? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even though it is a regular tv series, notability is not inherited and I've failed to gather sources. If the previous contributor fails to find reliable sources, I'm inclined for a 'deletion. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Borderline, but probably meets WP:GNG Squareanimal (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources that establish that are...? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:40, 4 December 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) 02:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Turner Classic Movies#Regular features. As I recall, it's not really long enough to be called a program, more of an introduction (I could be wrong). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if you count The Essentials and The Essentials Jr jointly, there's a few articles now cited. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Colapeninsula says, sufficient sources especially if you include Hader's "Jr." series. I added some additional sources from a HighBeam search.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And these sources are exactly the sort of casting announcements that I spoke of in the nomination. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're more than announcements: they're articles discussing the host and show, what they're doing to be doing, etc, i.e. commentary and analysis. An announcement is a single sentence saying "X has signed to Y." --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:32, 6 December 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. Possible merging can be addressed through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H.A.M.M.E.R.[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S.H.I.E.L.D.#H.A.M.M.E.R.. Could also be merged per BOZ, but I think there's enough information already at SHIELD to cover this. As usual, there's just not enough significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:35, 22 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:05, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into S.H.I.E.L.D.#H.A.M.M.E.R. (first choice) or into Features of the Marvel Universe (second choice). --Crazy runner (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let the page stay. H.A.M.M.E.R. played a major role in the Dark Reign storyline and in the issues that featured the second incarnation of the Dark Avengers. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:19, December 7 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watermark Books and Café[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a company with no evidence of notability. The parent company's notability (if it exists) does not confer notabilty onto the subject of this article. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 22:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. coverage is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 22 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:07, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything on Google News, and the article isn't much help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 5 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim majority cities in India[edit]

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

WP:OR, factual incorrect (urban areas are not the same as cities), speculation The Banner talk 22:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR does not make for good articles. This list is not notable as a group as required by WP:LISTN. - Mr X 00:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: @The Banner: So you are basically saying is that the present content of the topic is wrong but you aren't saying anything on whether a topic as this should have a article on Wikipedia or not.
@MrX: What notability criteria are you exactly pointing at which the current article fails? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From my European point of view the notability of the list is at least doubtful. I don't see the use of categorizing people or cities on something as religion. But the main thing was that the present article was and is WP:OR (the source is that bad that you have some interpretation to do) and it was clear speculation and a Crystal bol. The Banner talk 15:21, 10 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the one available source provided for this article the content certainly appears to meet the criteria for being a synthesis at this point, in taking regional population data and combining it with a map of cities, even if the figures are accurate. Dolescum (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It sure is notable.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The overall composition of a significant center of population is clearly a notable property. As long as a source is listed with each assertion, I see no grounds for considering this original research or synthesis. While personally I would consider the compilation of such lists a bit divisive and therefore not a worthwhile or respectable occupation, if someone else wants to keep a well-cited list then I don't see any Wikipedia policy that should prohibit them from doing it here, in the open. prat (talk) 04:13, 29 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source i WP:PRIMARY and the interpretation of that source is WP:OR. We have no idea how valid that data is (definition of urban area, whether census data is being correctly interpreted, etc. etc.). --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are we going to keep record of cities as well now? When they can be simply mentioned in States page? Just make a photo or something, and insert it to Islam in India, if you want to highlight cities. Nothing else can be done. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:09, 12 December 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) 22:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield International Venues[edit]

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

Written entirely like an advert and much of the content belongs on the pages of the relevant venues. No sources and practically no useful content about the organisation itself. SheffGruff (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

concur, this is an ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyharris (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Horribly ADVERT, and it is only managing venues, not owning them. However even managing assets worth £250M is surely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 24 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:14, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a significant organisation. However, the article as it stands is like an advert in parts and poorly written in other parts ("over the past 10 years" is meaningless). If kept, major rewrite needed to pare to the bone. Emeraude (talk) 13:11, 5 December 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commission on Superhuman Activities[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate the effort put into this but Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for hosting detailed information about a fictional work which can only be studied by reading that fictional work. If some of the citations were to books or articles discussing the article's subject, then I would say keep, but it seems that the content in this article is coming only from the work of fiction itself. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. I agree with Blue, but we've got a perfectly fine home for all these non-notable, in-universe articles. Deletion is fine as a fallback, but I think we should try to preserve what we can from these articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fictional in-universe topic without significant cultural impact or substantial coverage in independently-published sources. Wikia is thattaway -----> (Jimmy Wales thanks you for your business and hopes you are pleased.) Carrite (talk) 17:37, 25 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:18, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. Some sources are available [25], [26], The Superhero Book by Gina Misiroglu, if someone has the time to look into them. --Crazy runner (talk) 11:20, 9 December 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. Feel free to redirect if you feel like it. SarahStierch (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SingTel Grid Girls[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable obscure tv-show that existed some years ago. damiens.rf 15:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:07, 21 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Usually I'd try to defend this with some kind of argument that every show has some notability. This, though? It's literally a reality show to pick attractive women to hold flags for a race. Probably why it's now reduced to an Internet vote; nobody wants to spend eight weeks watching a show about picking out flagholders seen for a small amount of time in an F1 race. Nate • (chatter) 08:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible redirect to Singapore Grand Prix as a possible search term, since it was once part of the buildup to the grand prix (albeit a minor one), but if it's shown that this was so minor it really didn't matter much to the grand prix then delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:16, 3 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:06, 5 December 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 Strathcona, Vancouver#Education. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avenir School[edit]

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

WP:NSCHOOL. No reliable sources. Not known nationally. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The website for this school says that it began offering a full time curriculum in fall 2011 and as of fall 2013, it offers classes up to grade 12. [27][28] It appears to be an alternative school for gifted kids. I haven't yet found any information on how big it is; here's the Google Street View for the address given on the website, which is (part of) a small office building (you can see the school's banner in the picture). [29] I am a strong supporter of our very generous customary standards for high schools, but I suspect this one may be too small and obscure to survive unless some reliable source coverage turns up; so far, I've found only some calendar listings on local Strathcona websites. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator's mention that WP:NSCHOOL, a subsection of WP:ORG requires "national coverage" led me to find that that guideline is in the midst of a smoldering edit war which seems to be stripping away any presumption of notability, with statements on the talk page that notability for schools might be based on their being one of the "nation's 50 best" or some such blue ribbon criterion, as if we were a "Michilin Guide to High Schools," with some calling for very difficult requirements to avoid a high school article being deleted. It is hard to apply a guideline which is in a slow edit war. There seems to be one viewpoint present among AFD editors and perhaps a different one among those who contribute to the guideline talk page. Edison (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 22 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Strathcona, Vancouver#Education where there is sufficient content. This is a school of just 11 pupils [30]. While it theoretically educates to Grade 12 there is no evidence that any pupil is currently in classes above Grade 9 so it is not a verifiable high school. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Whispering Wind's helpful data and well-reasoned suggestion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:02, 5 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Varre[edit]

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

Subject of the article is asserted to have roles in recent and upcoming films. If Varre had such roles, that would have been at least mentioned in Indian newspapers and the usual film websites. Article would appear to fail WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER as well as any other numbers of notability guidelines or policies. Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 22 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not appear to be notable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:04, 11 December 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) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotyp[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. No independent refs with in-depth coverage. No evidence of charting, awards or in-depth coverage. PROD removed without improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only third party coverage appears to be discographies and mixtape listings. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:49, 27 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:04, 5 December 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) 22:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subedar Mishra[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a recently deceased person. No reference for awards or freedom-fighting activities (which seem to be relatively minor). PROD removed without improvement of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alas, no sources for this meritorious student. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 23 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:28, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 9 December 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. The first nomination resulted in a keep. No one commented this time. I have no prejudice against speedy renomination. SarahStierch (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seyan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

My apologies for dragging this up again - for some reason I didn't watchlist the previous discussion and thus people were misguided. That discussion contained no valid reason to keep, despite appearances. GNG does require that there is significant coverage in (generally multiple) independent reliable sources rather than a mere mention, although Warden seemed to think otherwise. Candleabracadabra !voted to keep on the basis that the consensus was to keep, which is surely not a valid reason - it is a sort of piling on effect.

The sources presented by Warden in that discussion are not reliable. Little from the Raj ethnography ever is, aside from perhaps E. A. Gait. We can't redirect to some caste-related article if all we have is the official Raj ethnographies because they routinely got caste groups mixed up etc and indeed were contradictory & couldn't even agree what was a caste, a gotra, a misl, a Jat, a Rajput etc. Given that their methodology was often that of scientific racism, best exemplified by H. H. Risley, or uncritical regurgitation of what the locals told them - James Tod - it is probably not surprising.

This is just a family name but without any discussion about it in reliable sources, it it not notable even as that. Sitush (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:02, 5 December 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 Political Economy Research Institute. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic 100[edit]

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

The page has been marked for expansion since 2008 (check the talk page) and that the only sources present are from the university that comes up with the list. Meatsgains (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Political Economy Research Institute who promulgates the non-notable "award". Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's lead includes 10 random companies under the Toxic 100 list. It doesn't make sense why the creator of the page decided to choose these companies to incorporate in the lead. If the page is to be merged, then it should only list the top 5 or 10 polluters in the lead rather than a random selection of companies. Meatsgains (talk) 02:57, 26 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:32, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:01, 5 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arsen Mikayelyan[edit]

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

Ambassadors are arguably notable, but there is no such presumption for consuls. Armenia has an ambassador to Romania; this chap is a consul. Now, per WP:DIPLOMAT, he could be notable - that is, if he has "participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance". Well, let's check on that.

This article informs us that he was among several officials present at the annual town festival of Dumbrăveni (population 7,000), which included several Armenian-themed events. This one informs us that he attended an art exhibit and took part in a roundtable discussion.

I don't know about you, but "events of particular diplomatic importance" would seem to me to require a rather higher threshold, something like negotiating an important treaty, arranging for hostage rescue, coordinating disaster relief, informing the host government of a declaration of war, and so forth. Paron Mikayelyan doubtless draws a generous salary from the Armenian Foreign Ministry. He's not going to sit around his office all day (although he probably could, and no one would really notice) - from time to time, he's going to look at paintings, watch some folk dancers, appear on stages and look important. That's his job, that's how he justifies the salary. But in the absence of any legitimate reasons to consider him either a notable diplomat or a notable biographical subject at all, I would say let's delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. being an ambassador is not inherently notable. being a consul general less so. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 25 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:33, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:00, 5 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiharu Washino[edit]

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

I first began cleaning up a page that was likely machine translated from the Japanese Wikipedia, but when I tried to find RS in English or Japanese to check on the content, I could not. I checked two Japanese newspaper databases and could find no mention of this person. I can't even find RS confirming that he designed Monchhichi (the attribution on the English WP page was inserted by the editor who created this). Michitaro (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless anything new comes up. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:34, 21 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:38, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 9 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter L. Corsell[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support for article. Article references appear to be either trivial, lack independence or are not WP:SECONDARY in nature. The awards may support the article, but I question their ability to be enough to support the article. Appears to be a vanity piece created by someone that is creating a series of articles about the same company's management group. reddogsix (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will find most of the personality posts on wikipedia are usually from a 'related' party. Looking at the references and it seems objective. There are no subjective items like 'he is the coolest guy in the world' :) He is noted personality and written about. That is him on the front cover of Inc. I would say this falls on the right side of the border but I was looking for edits to make but I don't see anything glaring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyharris (talk • contribs) 18:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I must have missed him on the cover of Inc., could you provide the reference? The articles that are used as references are either trivial, lack independence or are not WP:SECONDARY in nature. This does not support WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on other reviewer comments researched and added additional national secondary article and book publication references: Corsell was quoted in the books "The Clean Tech Revolution" (Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clean_Tech_Revolution - see page referenced in citation) as well as "Smart Energy Technologies in Everyday Life", "Environmental Management: Readings and Cases", and "The Plot to Save the Planet: How Visionary Entrepreneurs and Corporate Titans are Creating Real Solutions to Global Warming". Additional secondary source news citations are from Forbes ("It's the Network"), Inc.com ("Being Al Gore: Entrepreneurs offer advice to the veep-cum-venture capitalist"), Washington Business Journal ("Power Surge"), Forbes ("A New Generation Charges Ahead"), and CNNMoney "Fuel was cheap and pollution was free' That's what the world was like when the current energy system was designed, said GridPoint CEO Peter Corsell". In the smart grid industry Corsell has been consistently covered for almost 10 years and is a well known thought leader

Specific reference citations added include: Dumaine, Brian (2008). The Plot to Save the Planet: How Visionary Entrepreneurs and Corporate Titans are Creating Real Solutions to Global Warming. Random House. p. 134. "Being Al Gore: Entrepreneurs offer advice to the veep-cum-venture capitalist". Inc. Magazine. February 1, 2008. "It's the Network". Forbes. September 26, 2007. "A New Generation Charges Ahead". Forbes. January 26, 2009. "Power Surge: The race to discover new ways to create and use energy runs through Washington as investors pump $230M into local firms". Washington Business Journal. September 18, 2006. "'Fuel was cheap and pollution was free' That's what the world was like when the current energy system was designed, said GridPoint CEO Peter Corsell.". CNN Money. April 22, 2009. Russo, Michael V. (2008). Environmental Management: Readings and Cases. SAGE. pp. 281–282.

It appears Corsell was on two Inc. magazine covers - added those to the references as well: http://cometskateboards.com/content/comet-lands-cover-inc-magazine

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.topyaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/inc.jpg&imgrefurl=http://topyaps.com/top-10-business-magazines/&h=393&w=299&sz=140&tbnid=sAMEbmnu5sU6RM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=73&zoom=1&usg=__uVJXPcJNZMptEnQ-LFjLUW7CxsQ=&docid=NAvN5N-yod2GgM&sa=X&ei=C-6PUsa-AYuqkAfp1YGgCQ&ved=0CEQQ9QEwBg

(see page for links to all references) (EMSguru (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMSguru (talk • contribs)

The support for Corsell meeting the notability requirements is summarized below:

Meets the Basic notability criteria for people (WP:BASIC ) per the detailed references below. “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”

All of the following are supported in the cited references at the bottom of the article:

Subject of independent, reliable, secondary sources: Corsell has been covered in Forbes, CNNMoney, TechCrunch, CNET, multiple Inc. Magazine articles, Washington Monthly, Businessweek, and the Washington Business Journal
Featured twice on the cover of Inc. Magazine
Quoted in 6 individual books, among them Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas Friedman (New York Times #1 bestseller) and The Clean Tech Revolution by Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder

Under WP:ANYBIO, Corsell has won the following well-recognized awards:

Selected as a Young Global Leader by World Economic Forum (he was also Chairman of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Sustainable Energy)
Selected for the Innovator Under 35 award in 2008 by MIT Technology Review
Selected as a Tech Pioneer by Businessweek magazine

--EMSguru (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, following my initial article posting, I have since re-read the page a number of times with an eye to applying the Wikipedia criteria for neutrality line by line and have submitted edits in an effort to remove any questions about language that could be perceived as promotional that isn't a cited, objective fact. Further, edits from the community are, of course, welcome and expected. --EMSguru (talk) 03:18, 26 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:39, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

––––– It appears to me that the concerns about the subject being a "non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support for article" have been thoroughly addressed, and the references show that the subject more than meets the WP:BIO and WP:BASIC criteria. The "vanity piece" concern is a common one on Wikipedia, but this discussion has ensured that the page is factual and meets the criteria. I believe it would be a worse offense to the integrity of information on Wikipedia and its processes to completely delete this page based on a generic concern about conflict of interest even though the information is thoroughly sourced and meets the criteria. I'm sure everyone agrees that it would be better to have other Wiki users edit the page, and in the future hopefully that will be the case. Of course, deleting the page would eliminate that possibility. Thanks for letting me weigh in.Elijahhuntrhodes (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that the new references that were added to the page after the original publication are independent and meet the WP:SECONDARY criteria, which was the only argument posted against this. It seems as though additional publications that were secondary and well-known, high-profile, etc were added and thus show the significance of the references. The new references added overcome the original claim that the references were “trivial” and “lacked independence”. I agree with Elijahhutrodes on the fact that we should let this entry go live, and give other Wiki users the opportunity to edit going forward. InboundWeb (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These possible sockpuppets are killin' me here, oy, and I'm giving the article a good cleaning. I think he passes our general notability guidelines despite how promotional this all feels. LOL. SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 12 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edouard d'Araille[edit]

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

BLP that does not appear to meet basic notability standards. PROD removed without comment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After perusing it thoroughly on November 29 I tagged the article as insufficiently notable. Since that time, Johnhargreaves added some more sources but none to address the problem of notability, that is, none which would help to satisfy the minimal requirements of WP:BASIC. More references were then added by Aldersonsmith, including listings of books at Worldcat and the British National Biography, but these only show that a book exists; they do not help establish notability. Aldersonsmith also asserted that the quote by John Bayley ("Technically fascinating and moving") was made by a man connected to the London Review of Books and the New York Book Review, however it appears that Bayley's comment was not actually published by those periodicals or by any others. Perhaps the compliment was delivered in person, over the phone or by email. So what we have here is an overwhelming number of references none of which give us traction toward WP:BASIC. I have searched the interwebs for traces of dedicated coverage about d'Araille but I have not found anything suitable. Unfortunately I must weigh in with 'delete'. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Binksternet is quite right that the present article does not on the surface provide all the immediate requisites of WP:BASIC. However, on looking more closely at the sources and references, which are more substantial and numerous than for many an article on Wikipedia, it is not on the other hand entirely true that none of them go any distance to establish notability whatsoever. Two recent and subject-independent biographies of Edouard d'Araille - one in French (2013) and the other in German (2014) [of which I received a review copy] - have helped me establish many key facts for the purpose of providing a concise, non-laudatory article. The quote from Professor John Bayley, long-standing key columnist for the London Review of Books and contributor to New York Book Review was indeed not from either of these publications but from a Foreword written expressly by him for Edouard d'Araille's first publicly released book of poetry In a Short Space of Time (1999). There was no need to quote this foreword in its entirety but a brief comment seemed appropriate to mention in the context. The truth is that I struggled to find references for my Paul Louis Landsberg article more than for this one because I could find no biography whatsoever in existence and no photo of this latter author at all. It is true that presence of Edouard d'Araille's volumes in the British Library, the Bodleian, Trinity College Dublin etc.. does not prove notability per se, nor does the presence of his books in the British National Biography, on Worldcat or from bookshops worldwide close the case either. However, as a long-term literary observer I have seen the increase of this author's coverage on the internet alone balloon from a handful of entries in 1999 (on Google) to over 10,000 (on the same engine) at the current time. Again, though not conclusive of notability, the vast majority of these entries establish the availability of this author's works throughout the world in hardback, paperback, audiobook and ebook formats as well as the vast range of articles, introductions, complete works of poetry and fiction that he appears to have published in a period of less than fifteen years. Another element that sways me toward believing in the notability of this author is the level of projects he has been involved in, including two documentaries in collaboration with Robbe-Grillet, his numerous music videos for The Aftermath and his long-term attempts to popularize works of philosophy and literature. Even though he has only given half a dozen interviews over the last fifteen years - most of which I have cited - and only two independent biographies about him, just because there is not a flurry of dedicated coverage on the 'interwebs' about him does not mean that the offline coverage of him is not significant enough to warrant consideration. The bibliography and references on Edouard d'Araille have been given to the best of my knowledge based on all materials currently available to me, online and offline, and although a single new source may more quickly tip the balance in favour of the notability of this contemporary author, the materials provided and many biographical details cited with supporting evidence do seem to establish the overall picture of an author of repute. I simply request that my fellow Wikipedians, though I am heretofore only a short-serving contributor, take time before hastening speedy deletion of this article.Aldersonsmith (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC) NB - Not having been familiar with the process I accidentally removed the 'PROD' tag after having made improvements. Apologies for this as it was just due to my inexperience as a Wikipedian. I have now understood what the tag is for and that tags are always to be left intact.Aldersonsmith (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'PROD' tag can be deleted by anyone who disputes deletion. You dispute deletion, so your removal of that tag, even by accident, is valid. The removal of that tag brings us here to this page to discuss whether the article should be kept. This discussion is very useful because it will serve in the future when people are wondering about the treatment of d'Araille on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources should be about a person, independent of that person (not links to Amazon, Worldcat, speeches, books by the person, etc). For WP:ARTIST it means book and film reviews in reliable sources. Has there been even 1 book/film review in a reliable source? Though obviously need more than 1 to establish notability. -- GreenC 20:52, 8 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian dance in Australia[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. whilst I don't doubt that Ukrainian dance in Australia exists, it is not a notable topic for WP. the article is full of unreferenced statements and uses primary sources. this has not been covered in mainstream Australian media enough to satisfy WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons articulated by nom. - Mr X 02:06, 22 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:39, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:57, 5 December 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. Secret ^account 17:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 United States Open Cup for Arena Soccer[edit]

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

Unimportant, unverifiable, organization using Wikipedia as an advertisment Fulner (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - no evidence this is a notable tournament. The nominator might also wish to nominate related articles found in {{United States Open Cup for Arena Soccer}}. Giant Snowman 21:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as tournament over the years has been the subject of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable third-party sources. Article is not written in the style or form of an advertisement and, while arena soccer is down from its "glory days" in the late 1980s, it's still an active professional sport with multiple leagues and extensive ongoing press coverage. - Dravecky (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is an established tournament in it's sixth season, as indicated by the multiple wikipedia pages. This page is essential as the main and definitive source for this specific tournament, combining information directly from the League Commissioner and League Public Relations Director, and from social media like Twitter and Facebook that is difficult to source. - Jnp7675 (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "official" tournament bracket link on the Professional Arena Soccer League website ^[1] sends visitors to the Wiki page. I truly do not think the league media understand how to use Wikipedia, but they are not using it appropriately.TheScottDL (talk) 22:35, 27 November 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is no more an "advertisement" as any other page which covers events of a current sports league season (i.e. NFL 2013) or tournament (FIFA World Cup 2014) which is updated as it progresses - DallasHammster (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no credible policy-based rationale to keep. Having multiple Wikipedia pages does not establish notability. Dravecky above notes that the tournament "has been the subject of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable third-party sources", but there is no evidence to support this position. Current sports league seasons mentioned by DallasHammster have articles due to the extensive coverage, which doesn't seem to be the case for this season. Looking through the references I see blogs, Facebook pages and team sites. As TheScottDL mentioned above, even the "official" web page for this tournament seems to be using Wikipedia as a host for its results, in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. C 679 09:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While quoting me, you omitted the key phrase "over the years" as this year's tournament doesn't really get underway until this coming weekend with the bulk of the first two rounds' games played in December. (Also, at least a couple of the current sources are from major newspapers, not merely team sites and blogs.) - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 2 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "over the years" is not up for discussion here, but while you mention it, it looks like none of the other tournament seasons nor the tournament page itself have established any kind of notability. I would also like to address Jnp7675's comment about this page being the "main and definitive source for this specific tournament, combining information directly from the League Commissioner and League Public Relations Director, and from social media like Twitter and Facebook" which looks like a textbook violation of WP:OR. C 679 08:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the tournament itself is notable and we should keep the parent article, I don't think this article is a notable WP:SPINOFF of the parent, and that everything that is worth noting about this season should be included in the parent article. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

247 Asian Media[edit]

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

As the author has restored the page after a speedy delete, I decided to nom for deletion instead. This website is apparently non-notable. It has no reliable sources. The author claims that this article is " within the "Big 3" for KPOP News" and that the other two have wiki articles. This is an invalid argument, as both of those sites have reliable sources, and both have an alexa rank of less than 10,000. Those articles are also significantly shorter than this one. The author has an admitted WP:COI, and this article was commissioned, presumably by the company. This is another indicator of non-notability. Benboy00 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The website is apparently down at the moment, so I cant give any opinion on the actual content of it (another indicator that it shouldn't be thought of as notable). Benboy00 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, didn't even bother to ask WHY the site was down today. It was because of the HostGator problem that affected millions of sites today. Thanks for making the site look irrelevant. Also, the article was not commissioned. It was written because the Asian Entertainment agencies want our presence on Wikipedia. I don't understand how there can be a strong presence on LinkedIn for the company but not on Wikipedia, where there's an entry for "What Does The Fox Say?" Seriously?! There is no promotion, not sales, not even strong talk. The fact that the ranking was included and it's not the highest Alexa should be proof of that. How about searching entries in Wikipedia and seeing how many times 247 Asian Media is used as a source. Or, I don't know, giving pointers on how to make it "fit for you" since apparently random internet funny stuff for a week can have an entry but not an actual media presence. What happens if that site breaks some big news? Will they reserve the right to NOT be included on Wikipedia? This is really starting to seem like you only want things you personally have heard of. Go visit the site now, it's up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsianGuruGirl (talk • contribs) 10:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, please be aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. First of all, you said "You deleted the company page I was hired to work on". This clearly indicates that the article was commissioned. This is why I am claiming WP:COI. Next, "What does the fox say" is extremely popular, with many times the number of hits of 247 asian media. The main problem with the article is not advertising. The main problem with the article is notability. This subject is apparently non-notable ( WP:WEBCRIT). You have not shown any evidence to the contrary. The very low alexa rank is further evidence against notability. The fact that there are no WP:RELIABLE sources is even more evidence. If the site "breaks some big news", then presumably it will be covered by a reliable source, and at that point it may become notable enough for inclusion. Until that time, however, it is not notable. Please stop using inappropriate comparisons. One way to tell if a comparison is inappropriate is by comparing the popularity of the thing you are comparing. If it has an alexa rank that is several factors of ten lower than 247 asian media's, for example, or has over 200 million hits on youtube, it is an inappropriate comparison (although this is just a small list of things that make these comparisons inappropriate). The downtime is in a way an indicator of notability, as you would expect a highly notable website to have better hosting, although i understand that this may have been a one-time incident. Now that I have had a chance to look at the website, one thing in particular caught my attention: The "about" page looks like its been made up to look corporat-ey, using terms like "parent umbrella company". This is merely a point of interest, rather than a serious flaw. The staff page is "coming soon", hardly the image of an established notable organization. Also, it looks like "247 asian media" is only mentioned in three other articles. There are many more ways that this website fails notability, and if I have to I shall list them, but I think at the moment there is probably enough to be getting on with. Benboy00 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearcut delete ; author's participation in AFD reads like an attempt to generate traffic. Alexa says there may even be a single-digit of daily visitors. Somebody spam tag the user names-06:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SetagayaJ (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G11 and salt. Article was previously speedily deleted as G11, then recreated in spite of notices (including COI) on the user's talk page. Comments above such as "the Asian Entertainment agencies want our presence on Wikipedia" indicates that the author has failed to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a publicity medium. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see in the article's sources where the site is briefly mentioned in relation to a news event as a "so and so reported this" type of thing, but this is not considered to be coverage that would show notability. At most that might show that the site could be used potentially as a reliable source. The status of whether or not a site could be used as a RS has no true impact on notability. There are reliable sources that don't pass GNG while there are non-reliable sources that do. It's all down to coverage of the site, which 247 Asian Media lacks. Breaking big news could help gain the site coverage, but it's never a guarantee. Even popularity is not a guarantee of notability for the reasons stated above for reliable vs unreliable. This site just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for reasons stated by others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:36, 10 December 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. Keeping this one for now, looks like there is some interest in improvement. No opposition to another nomination. SarahStierch (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhi names[edit]

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

These regional lists of names are rarely sourced and rarely region-specific in practice, especially given the extent of the Indo-Pakistani diaspora. There only claim to commonality is location but in fact that is a poor intersect. This list is a typical example and it would be best handled at article level - one of those occasions where a category without a corresponding list actually makes some sense. Sitush (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No doubt this article is in poor shape, some of the content can be attributed as Original research, but have you gone through this? -- SMS ^Talk 21:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. I've never thought Sterling to be a particularly decent publisher and, well, the title says it all. Is the author an academic in a relevant discipline? I'd far rather see an article based on origins of names/tribal connections etc (as that source might do, if it were reliable) than a barely-controllable list that just about every passing anon will add something to. There is, for example, surely a difference between names that occur in Sindh and names that are Sindhi. I'm really not sure whether contributors have noted that distinction and I do not see the point of having non-notable names in a list, btw, even if they can be sourced to a passing mention. Having said which, I've never looked to see if we have Names of the United States, French names, Louisianan names or English names - I've always thought it best dealt with via a category on appropriate articles that discuss the individual names. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And French names is the way to do it, if it is done at all. That looks classy and useful. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 25 November 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination just seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CLN tells us not to delete lists to favour categories. Warden (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I don't like it in its current form. That is because, unlike you, I have a reputation of preferring to have articles only about notable subjects. As per Smsarmad (talk · contribs), it seems possible that this can be turned into an article about something that is notable - they seem to think that the source is ok. That was constructive and it comes from someone who happens to know something about the subject. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:50, 5 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MEETS (cable system)[edit]

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

This is a stub about a yet-to-be built telecommunication cable. The consortium that wants to build it was formed in September of this year.

Fails WP:FUTURE: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Toddst1 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 20 November 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Refs done appear to be reliable. ~KvnG 00:02, 1 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:50, 5 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra P. Grant[edit]

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

Non-notable actress who had a brief stint on one soap opera. Orange Mike | Talk 04:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from soap opera, there were minor roles in notable movies ("Accountant", "Receptionist", and "Waitress" according to IMDb) and guest roles in a few TV series. Plus award nomination but not win. This doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 5 December 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) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Beattie[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – has not played at a sufficiently high level and has not received sufficient coverage. C 679 08:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:00, 6 December 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 List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ULTIMATUM (comics)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. --Crazy runner (talk) 10:14, 1 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:38, 5 December 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 Somewhere in the Between. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We Will Fall Together[edit]

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

Non notable song. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NSONG. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Somewhere in the Between as non-notable song; that link is to the album, which currently has a skeletal article but appears to have legitimate reviews. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Colapeninsula. SarahStierch (talk) 02:15, 12 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Malhotra[edit]

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

Unreliable sources include IMDb, No any reliable published sources for Verifying ChanderFor You 14:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have been through this. I told you plenty times that TellyChakkar is RS. Other editors also told you the same. But i will let you try to make a fool of yourself once more. The article will not be deleted! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This site not write the news as self, that is only used Copy edit news from various sites.

And you just wait for other editors & admins action. Thank You:-ChanderFor You 05:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis you say that? And that doesn't make it unreliable necessarily. That's how people write their PhD thesis and earn doctorates, that's how we basically make Wikipedia. And what do you have to say about DNA, Times of India, Hindustan Times and probably many others? You have wrongly PRODed many articles recently like Swini Khara, Khushi Dubey, Prashant Ranyal, Nandish Sandhu, Madhav Apte, Arvind Apte, Rao Surtan Singh, Mouni Roy, Pawan Negi, Bundu Khan, Anand Goradia and probably more. When are you gonna get a hang of whats to be deleted and what not? Will that only dawn on you when an admin teaches you it in a hard way? This is WP:Vandalism. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really??? You think i'm a Vandalize user? WoW! So let me tell you one thing, This (Swini Khara, Khushi Dubey, Prashant Ranyal, etc..) all articles were Unsourced or travel with dead links, & It's nothing to wrong if i tagged PROD. :-ChanderFor You 13:52, 29 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I did find some other reliable secondary sources, which Dharmadhyaksha shared, but, some of this stuff in his article is unverifiable without proper sourcing. And nominations don't always mean notability. Now can you two please chill out? :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:21, 12 December 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 Morlocks (comics). Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Nation[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Morlocks (comics). BOZ (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morlocks (comics), where it is already described. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Morlocks (comics).--Crazy runner (talk) 17:50, 5 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EXERD[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. I searched for references myself, but couldn't find any non-affiliated ones. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 28 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability found. It is possible that some substantial Korean coverage may be found, in which case happy to revise my opinion, but I note that the equivalent Korean Wikipedia article is also unreferenced. AllyD (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I'm not seeing any evidence that this is a notable tool. It exists, and that's great, but that does not mean that it is notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:08, 10 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchira Panda[edit]

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

Fails on WP:BAND. Definitely has some references in newspaper, but has no encyclopedic value. Hitro talk 19:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-> The major contributor is the subject herself. There are references of her name in some newspaper but she has never been the subject of any coverage. Hitro talk 19:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:39, 2 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of the English-language newspaper references discusses the subject at length. Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 11 December 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Soop[edit]

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

Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. It is made my an un-notable brand, is only available in a small region and makes no claim as to why it is otherwise notable. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 20:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article contain a list of references of which only one represents a reliable source in the form of a news story covering the potential abuse of the drink by students. I could find no more coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 3 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail our general notability guidelines. Aside from the source Whpq found, I also found one where some guy stole some. Looks like it's getting some kids drunk, but, it's not ready for a Wikipedia article yet. Maybe someday. SarahStierch (talk) 02:27, 12 December 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 as copyvio. No prejudice against recreation, provided notability has been demonstrated, and obviously against AfD renomination if it would be necessary.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Rush[edit]

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

Non-notable songwriter, wrote one song that went to #28 on the Japanese charts, not enough to be considered notable. -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, WP:MUSICBIO number 2 says that "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" is enough to be considered notable. While you're looking, please see WP:BEFORE, particularly Read and understand these policies and guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That criteria is for musicians, not the songwriters. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from her facebook page. "Bad Kat" is sitting at #40 in the Billboard Japan Hot 100 having peaked at 28, and been on the chart for 3 weeks. I'm not convinced this makes it a notable composition for the purposes of WP:COMPOSER, but with the copyvio, the article as it stands would need to be done from scratch. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 3 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't for the life of me find any reliable secondary source in English about her writing a song for Yoko Yazawa. Can anyone find one in Japanese perhaps? SarahStierch (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Garuru Records' page for Yoko Yazawa lists Bad Cat with credit to Dave Filice and Lindsay Rush.-- Whpq (talk) 02:41, 12 December 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) 18:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blaster (Star Wars)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional item. Independent reliable sources do not establish that blasters within the Star Wars franchise are notable separate from the franchise itself. Fails WP:GNG, WP:FICT and WP:OR. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:15, 19 November 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 November 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect, which is what I errantly did when I mistook the AfD notice as a WP:PROD. I'm going to ask the nom. to withdraw this AfD to see if merge/redirect will stick, which I suspect it will. [Caveat: the target itself isn't the strongest List of..., either.] --EEMIV (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to allow the AFD to run its course and see what consensus emerges. My concern with a merge is that there is no information in this article that's independently reliably sourced. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the four sources are to third-party works. Insufficient to established WP:GNG, but sufficient to provide passing coverage that clears the WP:WAF bar in a List of... or some other article covering the films' production. --EEMIV (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that only one is really independent, since the game cited would have been produced under franchise. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the prop blog and the print source, but...whatever. --EEMIV (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Erik's barrage of quickie edits give me pause to cull the stand-alone article. Seems there is some specific, nitpicky third-party commentary -- plus, I realize these props have been merchandised out the wazoo, and that seems a decent GNG threshold. --EEMIV (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic. I found this quickly, and the book The Science of Star Wars covers blasters. The book Myth, Media, and Culture in Star Wars mentions the color-coding choices of blaster fire. However, the current article content needs to be purged as fancruft. We can take a more creative and real-world approach to this topic and leave the fancruft to Wookieepedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This mentions where the sound effect of blasters comes from. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Star Wars weapons. The sources don't really shout out as being signification enough to support an article on this alone. I would say the the overall discussion of the weapons in the series could merit a detailed article, so anything for this could reasonably fit there and help with that until it proves that it needs to be split out for size issues. TTN (talk) 17:22, 21 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Star Wars weapons. This may end up gathering enough sources to pass the GNG all by itself, but I don't think that a separate article is entirely necessary.LM2000 (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with List of Star Wars weapons - preferred) or (Weak) Delete. This isn't the worst page to ever appear on Wikipedia, and it was probably uploaded for genuine reasons. But it doesn't quite meet the criteria of WP:GNG. If it comes down to a tally of votes, count as only a half-vote for delete, if it is not merged.Squareanimal (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there were any doubt on the standalone notability of this article at the time of nomination, I think they are well gone now. Not only did the recent expansion showed that diverse sources provide a sizable amount of "real world" information on Star Wars blasters, but since December 2, numerous news articles mention the upcoming sale of Han Solo's blaster (e.g. [31], [32]). This shows the real world significance of this fictional element, and provides even more room for expansion. Therefore, this subject is notable for a standalone article, and whether it should be merge or not is up for editorial discretion (i.e. discussed on the talk page), it cannot be AFD-mandated in these circumstances. Cenarium (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Cenarium: Thanks, I've incorporated The Guardian into the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, I didn't realize you already added a section. My bad! Erik (talk | contribs) 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the auction news/attention has more to do with Han Solo's notability more than the blaster prop/device's. Still, there is some meaningful content that is worth retaining somewhere, and probably best to close this discussion and migrate it all to the article talk page to ascertain best direction from there. --EEMIV (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:GNG says about notability, "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Even if it is because of Han Solo, The Guardian gave good behind-the-scenes information about the blaster in the films. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems from other comments that it is now WP:GNG which means it is also now WP:FICT. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:21, 5 December 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) 18:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Moore: The World of Donald Harrington[edit]

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

Non-notable film BOVINEBOY2008 02:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not to be released until November 25 and does not have enough coverage of its production to meet WP:NFF. This one is simply TOO SOON. Okay with a reasonable redirect to article on Donald Harington (where it has a sourced mention) until such time (if ever) that this film gains wider coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:10, 20 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find no indication that this film is, or is likely to be soon, independently notable. Also note that the current title of this article has two misspelled words.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed the new contributor's error, but did not wish to move to a proper spelling while an AFDwas in progress. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:08, 5 December 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 Drama Queen (Ivy Queen album). SarahStierch (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cosas De La Vida (song)[edit]

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

Possibly fails WP:NSONG. Although there's a substantial amount of text in the article, only one source that isn't just a list of tracks on the album is actually an original, reliable source for the album: People En Espanol. (One other source is just a word-for word copy of the People text: here). The article is mostly album background (including much about the album's composition and recording) derived from Drama Queen (Ivy Queen album), where this information belongs. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 01:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete or Merge (whatever works) I struggled to find reliable secondary sources in English and Spanish. I can't see how this song passes our notability guidelines. I appreciate the good work of the editor who created the article though. SarahStierch (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: redirecting would probably be best as most of the information in the article already appears in Drama Queen (Ivy Queen album). BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 23:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting seems like the best course of action, by itself it hardly seems notable. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:02, 6 December 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 26 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONGS. I was unable to find any reliable sources. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 11 December 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. I'm agreeing with User:In ictu oculi and going to close this as no consensus. I work in the culture sector and a lot of sources often require digging. Let's assume good faith (like we do on DYK for example) about offline sources and improve before we delete. I am not opposed to a renomination, however. SarahStierch (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Star (Gene Vincent song)[edit]

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

I'm failing to see how this passes WP:NSONG. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONG starts:

"Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label."

The sources in the stub at the time of AFD were these

Derek Henderson Gene Vincent: A Companion 2005 Page 3 "Late 1961 Gene's last USA Capitol single Lucky Star/Baby Don't Believe Him released."
The Goldmine Roots of Rock Digest Goldmine Magazine 1999 Page 137 " "Lucky Star" b/w "Baby, Don't Believe Him" from the October '61 sessions," .In May, Vincent, who had remained in touch with Dave Burgess, an old friend who now ran Five Star Music and Challenge ... "Lucky Star" b/w "Baby, Don't Believe Him" from the October '61 sessions, followed in February 1969 with The Best Of ...
Michel Rose Pionniers du rock'n'roll 1981 Page 124 "On peut acquérir à la rigueur le sixième album Rick Is 21 (LP 9152) qui contient quelques bons titres, « Break my chain », « Sure fire belt », « Lucky star » (repris par Gene Vincent) et le célèbre « Hello Mary Lou »."

Without looking further into Google Books, do these 3 footnotes in the stub at the time of AFD not qualify as "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label."? per WP:NSONG? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gene Vincent as none of the sources seem to actually cover the song but just as mentions regarding Vincent's discography. Hardly the "subject" of multiple, non-trivial published works. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the mention of Lucky Star (Ricky Nelson song) does "cover" the song not merely list it. It isn't a listing it is a specific comment on the song saying it was one of Ricky Nelson's best tracks on Ricky is 21 and later picked up by Gene Vincent.

Also this AfD may deserve a longer listing given common factors with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingdian (band), the same rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 23 November 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, L Faraone 05:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All citations appear to be trivial mentions in passing, no more than a sentence in longer works. Also, I see no qualities in common between this deletion nom and the ones mentioned by In ictu oculi, could you explain further why they have relevance here? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor also nominated 9 other articles all of which were speedy kept. I have expanded the section on the Ricky Nelson version, and added more material on the session putting it in the context of Vincent's interrupted tour. VanHecke, Susan Race With the Devil - Gene Vincent's Life p.153 In ictu oculi (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first point verges on an ad hominem argument, and I fail to see why any pattern of AfD nominations affects whether this song is notable. To the second point, a lot of biographical material has been added and material on another artist, but the citations still appear to be passing mentions. I still don't see any of these cites as discussing the song itself in any depth. For example, the article for Do You Hear What I Hear? cites the composer's New York Times obituary, which spends the first three paragraphs discussing the song and its composition and impact. That is something I consider a non-trivial mention. I don't yet see that here. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is ad hominem, I'm saying we wouldn't be having this AfD if it hadn't been targeted because I was the article creator. The difference between Ricky Nelson and Gene Vincent on the one hand and Noël Regney is that Gene Vincent and to a lesser extent Ricky Nelson were major rock n roll artists and all of their singles stand a good chance of passing both WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, wheras the Christmas standard "Do You Hear What I Hear?" is the only reason Noël Regney would get a NYT obituary. That argument is apples and oranges.

Vincent produced many singles so a better comparison would be something from Category:2012 singles. Just to take the first ones mentioned 100 Proof (song), 1000nen, Zutto Soba ni Ite..., 12 dage, 12:51 (Krissy & Ericka song), 2 Reasons, 2012 Spark, 2nd Sucks, 3 Kings (Rick Ross song), 30 Days (song), 30 Minute Love Affair, 4 AM (Scooter song), 45 (The Gaslight Anthem song), 4th of July (Amy Macdonald song), 5-1-5-0, 50 Ways to Say Goodbye, 777 (We Can Sing a Song!), 93 Million Miles, 96 F**kries, 999 (song) do you think that these are on average more long term notable than the Gene Vincent song? This isn't pointed out per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that mention in Ricky Nelson and Gene Vincent's bios, particularly Vincent's is not just passing mention. This song session with his old friend Burgess while recuperating from the Glasgow collapse, and the way Burgess gave his song to two artists, and the way that Vincent featured this song with his fans in the UK, while his fan base in the US was eroding make the song worth keeping. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 5 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is only about six weeks old and already has more depth and better sourcing than most song articles I've seen. Since it's still a quite new article, it may still be WP:NOTFINISHED. Additional improvements have been made since the deletion consideration began. I suggest to give it a chance to mature further. For example, I would compare this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On My Way (song) in terms of depth of content and sourcing. That article had no depth whatsoever, and no references to establish notability (assuming that mere inclusion in lists is not adequate depth to establish notability). In fact the article contained no information at all about the song itself (and it still doesn't). It only discusses chart list positions and what the song's video shows. Yet, the outcome of the AfD was a clear "keep", and the article is still titled as the "primary song" for the title "On My Way", despite the presence of eight other songs with the same name discussed in Wikipedia articles. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Internet era sources I'm requesting this closed as no consensus. One of the other issues with songs of this period is that magazines and newspapers of the time are generally not online, but on microfiche at libraries. That doesn't mean that a Gene Vincent single was ignored by the press of the day. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 12 December 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.

^ [33]

[1] [33]

[1]