Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 July	3 July >

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. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of writers about Egypt till the 19th century[edit]

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

This page is an indiscriminate list. It cannot be fixed because it is not about Egyptian writers, nor about books on Egypt, nor even about proto-Egyptology or writings of a specific period or genre, but about any writer or work of any time that talks about Egypt. It is almost entirely composed of general geographical works of antiquity in which Egypt is covered and 17th-/18th-century European travel literature. It entirely neglects any medieval writers or works on Egypt and this cannot be rectified because the scope of the list is too wide. It is not about merely geographical books, nor merely travel guides, nor only European writings, nor early modern works only. It is not even only about works that are primarily or solely about Egypt. The criteria the article presents are:

This is a list of writers who have written extensively about Egypt and their produced accounts, and may be considered essential, the only, highly popular, ground breaking, major or primary sources on various subjects related to Egyptian history.

What makes Tacitus' Annales essential? How is Pausanias an extensive writer about Egypt? The "various subjects" is the giveaway. How many of those 16th-century works are essential, unique or ground-breaking? Almost none of these sourcse are primary. Srnec (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vague, arbitrary and overly broad criteria fail WP:SALAT. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Various" is the epitome of random stuff collected into a list. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ansh666 06:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dusti^*poke* 03:12, 9 July 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 closed. Since this AfD is exactly the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust in Me (Katy Perry song) and for extremely similar media (non-notable Katy Perry singles from the same album), they will be bundled. Beerest355 Talk 00:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search Me[edit]

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

non-notable single from an artist who later became notable Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 2 July 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 Katy Hudson (album). Article history left intact if anyone would like to merge relevant information to the redirect target. ~ mazca ^talk 08:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trust in Me (Katy Perry song)[edit]

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

non-notable single from an artist who later became notable Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have bundled an AfD for Search Me with this as it was exactly the same and the media being discussed (two non-notable Katy Perry singles that did not chart) is too similar to warrant different AfDs. With that said, delete all - these are two obscure singles that only Katy Perry fans would be interested in. Not notable at all. Beerest355 Talk 00:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bundling the AfDs. If successful, I would expect both to redirect to the album article and to be locked to prevent User:Вова Абрамов, or similar editors from re-creating the articles in the future. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both articles into the main article on Kate Perry. Change the incumbent song article titles into redirects to the appropriate sections of the main Kate Perry article. Rammer (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If independent sources can be found (as of now, both articles' sources are a Canadian fan site and Wikia), keep both; otherwise, redirect both to Katy Hudson (album). I don't see a reason for a flat-out delete. (And btw, Richard, it's Katy Perry, not Kate Perry.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is a good merge to Katy Hudson (album) to me. EditorE (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was also thinking that "Search Me" had more live performances than other tracks, and there might be some critical responses in reviews of the album, but I'm guessing there could be some more WP:SIGCOV, but I'm not sure. Someone should look. EditorE (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect both into Katy Hudson (album). I'm not finding enough on either song to warrant individual articles. Gong show 20:51, 7 July 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) 04:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke machine gun[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. This article is based entirely on a patent of 1905 that did not see production. There is a bit of secondary coverage about this patent in a book by Chinn, in the context of the development of revolver cannons (or better said, revlover autocannons, because they involve autoloading from a belt.) I have added the information to the latter article. According to Chinn, Clarke's patent was basically ignored because it came during the heyday of the Maxim and Browning designs; the Mauser developers of the first revolver autocannon were apparently unaware of this patent. There is some unverifiable information in this article as well, e.g. the intended/desired rate of fire, but that's about par for articles created by this group of accounts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source of information on the internet about this gun is Wikipedia itself and a couple of patent sites. There are no Wiki mirrors, no book references, no blogs, no discussions, no images and no other information. This is without any doubt, not notable enough to be on Wikipedia--RAF910 (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable with saying Delete to this one. Cant find any information other than whats been brought up. Good job adding relevant information to another, notable article. Cdtew (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - WP:ONESOURCE (well, once you add that source into this article), but if it were to be kept it would need a lot of weeding out of unverifiable info; I really doubt it would pass WP:GNG, having been forgotten even at the time. Ansh666 06:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG as outlined by RAF910. Finnegas (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Fails WP:GNG, would need a huge re-write like Ansh said. Dusti^*poke* 03:14, 9 July 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 (G7: Author requested) by DGG (talk · contribs)

Trevor Brownlow[edit]

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

Non-notable person. A laudable person, whose charity and leadership have received notice from the communities in which he is active, but not any broad significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Admirable individual but not currently meeting Wikipedia's inclusion guideline. In particular, there lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 8 July 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) 17:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucille D. Bainbridge[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Other than works written about her by her own sons, and a brief mention in passing that one or some of her works will be shown in a retrospective consisting of many artists, there does not appear to be any coverage of this artist anywhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is evident from careful reading of the article that she is not notable by or usual criteria. No major museums, oand only a fmaily-written biography DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in independent reliable sources. No indication of significant exhibitions, or of works held in collections of major museums or galleries. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEASS[edit]

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

Hoax. There is no Satellite navigation systems project in South Korea. There is no Google hit before February 2013 in which this article was created.[1] The article is a modification of Indian Regional Navigational Satellite System. The creator made another hoax edit to Nuclear submarine [2] and others,[3][4] and was blocked indefinitely. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3. Blatant hoax. KARI has not announced any such project. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 3 July 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) 04:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Amantegui[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This player fails WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources) as well as WP:NFOOTBALL (he has not played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 20:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Eeekster (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per GiantSnowman. Fails WP:NSPORT, WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, etc. Dusti^*poke* 03:16, 9 July 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Necronomicon (Sydney, Australia)[edit]

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

This convention does not appear to be notable, as it has not been (as near as I can tell) the subject of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources as outlined at WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 June 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, czar · · 14:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems non-notable and isn't going to become so anytime soon. Ducknish (talk) 20:40, 26 June 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, czar · · 20:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Whpq - No coverage in Reliable Sources, WP:GNG Dusti^*poke* 03:16, 9 July 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) 21:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Anish[edit]

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

non notable yoga teacher of a non notable organisation. Uncletomwood (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Hindu [5] and Deccan Herald [6] have dedicated articles about him and his book "Gopi Formula". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above --Muhammad(talk) 12:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two references stated above by another editor are news items which featured in the local editions of the supplements of the Hindu and Deccan Herald.Uncletomwood (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needed article. Mydreamsparrow (talk) 09:31, 21 June 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, czar · · 14:39, 25 June 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, czar · · 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Speedy keep - Withdrawn by nominator

Camilla Long[edit]

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

~~A journalist with nothing notable (hatchet job excepted which is hardly a major award)~~. Fails WP:AUTHOR 1-4. Widefox; talk 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Great job adding in a significant award guys, withdrawn. Widefox; talk 21:37, 2 July 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 Google Analytics#History. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urchin Software Corporation[edit]

Urchin Software Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats); (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelfish (software)

WP:NN company, ~~formerly~~ the article is just a promo piece for its former execs who have heavily edited the article. It seems like this company is adequately covered in Google_Analytics#History and a redirect there would be sufficient. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The paragraph in the Google article doesn't mention its creation in 1995, its founders, its history, etc. Urchin was well known before Google acquired it in 2005. You removed all the interesting stuff before proposing to deletion. DeansFA (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete & SALT as per advertising related to the other article and the obvious spam they are doing. Either way it fails wiki notability for both WP:CORP and WP:NSOFTWARE.Tyros1972 Talk 09:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why my actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account without any proof. I am a Wikipedia contributor for several years (mostly on the French Wikipedia) and have no any link with this company. This company was well known when I started to develop in the early 2000s (I was in France) and their software was extremely efficient and known in France. I added some sources. Your accusation is very unfair and dishonest.--DeansFA (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation has been basically dismissed by the authorities, so you don't need to worry about it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nominator; if spamming is a problem the redirect page could be locked. The company did exist and it has a successor; a redirect to the successor seems appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 18 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Google Analytics#History, where adequate coverage is given already, and could be expanded if deemed necessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 27 June 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, czar · · 19:53, 2 July 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irai Anbu[edit]

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

unremarkable non notable civil servant Uncletomwood (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : Notable for his contributions as author, speaker apart from being a civil servant. The Hindu mentions Dr. Irai Anbu is a household name in Tamil Nadu. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Evano1van. He is one of the motivational speaker and writer in Tamil Nadu. And I also add some of his books in that article.Gfosankar (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPlease see this [[11]]

the hindu mentioning about him doesn't make him notable,a lot of civil servants are authors,speakers and motivators but that dosen't mean that they get an article on wikipedia.I agree he is a well known person among some circles but that dosent warrant him an article. Moreover the does not meet WP:GNG.Uncletomwood (talk) 06:35, 15 June 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) 17:46, 25 June 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, czar · · 19:52, 2 July 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) 04:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pappoe[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fail WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally since the article was previously nominated for deletion. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 2 July 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 July 2. Snotbot t • c » 19:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails both WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- He appears never to have played in the first team. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 7 July 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) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz Connection[edit]

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

Contested Prod. The article seems to describe a non-notable company. The "Museum" stub seems to be incorrect as well. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. It's hard to see how this is even asserting notability. --DAJF (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how this company/group is notable. Is it covered in reliable sources? No. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:31, 4 July 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boby Chemmanur[edit]

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

non notable businessman,most of the references are about his company not him Uncletomwood (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a famous business man. The article is needed Mydreamsparrow (talk) 09:34, 21 June 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, czar · · 14:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 2 July 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) 19:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Housewitz[edit]

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

Subject does not appear notable per WP:N. Article is an orphan and a stub. Ahecht (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY, has only one reference. APerson241 (talk!) 19:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this is notable, but being an orphan and a stub and having only one reference are certainly not valid reasons for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found [12] and [13] which is signficant coverage, but this looks like a news item with no lasting impact. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 8 July 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) 21:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Aseemanand[edit]

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

As per WP:CRIME A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. also A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured sarvajna (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep Per the policy given as a rationale for deletion "criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: "he victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role" which this individual obviously did. He is also a noted VHP member, "the VHP to send one of its most enterprising clerics on a special assignment in 1997: Swami Aseemanand" Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Volume 2: Religion and Politics Brill p208 His role in terrorist attacks are also the subject of academic books. Encyclopedia of Terrorism p648 "In December 2010 authorities alleged that the Swami Aseemanand and the Saffron terror outfits" Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He is a noted Vishwa Hindu Parishad member and an arrested terrorist. "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." I really dont understand this logic,we are not convicting but merely just informing about him! Uncletomwood (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aseemanand is not an arrested terrorist, but an arrested alleged terrorist. The distinction is very important. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is clearly notable per the sources cited in the article and in this discussion. We do, of course, need to be careful not to make claims, such as "terrorist", that are not supported by cast-iron reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 2 July 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. Since the reslisting no further discussion has taken place, and as such there's no consensus for deletion. If you wish to further discuss, please take it to DRV. If an admin disagrees, feel free to revert. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 18:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagonal (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting, awards or independent in depth coverage. PROD removed by IP without improvement to the article. I'm not finding anything reliable in google, but I don't read Korean and the name is pretty generic. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see Korean article. all songs ranked South Korean official music chart and also album ranked 1. We found "Leessang Hexagonal" in google. Just article need translation - 121.139.81.113 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the Korean article appears to have some sources, although the reliability of those can be disputed (I don't read Korean, or even speak it). I found a couple things searching for "Hexagonal Leessang", but once again, not sure of reliability. If not, redirect to Leessang. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep - notablity. Kanghuitari (talk) 09:53, 26 June 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) 18:53, 2 July 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. On balance, consensus is that the sourcing isn't quite strong enough. Can be userfied on request. Sandstein 09:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modular Combat (video game)[edit]

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

Non-notable, poorly-referenced, full of WP:PUFFERY - a non-notable spawn from Half-Life that has zero requirements for an article of its own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found plenty of RSes on first Google page. Refs simply need to be added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it currently stands - reads like an advertisement and has no sources; fails WP:NOTABILITY. APerson241 (talk!) 19:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - meets WP:NVG (as Walter said, plenty of independent secondary sources showing sigcov). Article as it stands isn't too good, but can be improved. Maybe WP:TNT if nobody is willing to work on it, but I think keep is better on this one - the tags were added this month. Ansh666 02:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, per below, Weak keep - one reasonably good source. Ansh666 19:25, 4 July 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) 18:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable - no multiple* in-depth, independent, reliable WP:GNG sources. I searched for such (like WP:VG/RS), but I cannot produce such sources as Walter Görlitz and Ansh666 claim. I see a bunch of passing mentions, but nothing in-depth where the game/mod is the subject of the article. All others are directory listings, or primary sources. [14] lists a bunch of features, but they appear to all be within ModDB itself, so not independent. ~~I definitely don't see any reviews.~~* Willing to adjust my conclusion, should above editors link the sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC) *revised[reply]
- How about my very first google search result for "modular combat video game"? Here you go. There should be more, but they seem to have disappeared since I searched - searching for mods is harder than individual games. Ansh666 18:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's follow that up with some Russian sources: [15] and [16]. First 5 pages of Google gives this much. Ansh666 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, [17] looks good, albeit short and not a proper review (all my links to GameFront were downloads and such for some reason). [18] looks good at first glance, but author has no credentials and per [19] it's completely user-generated and I don't see editorial oversight except other users "voting" on posts, the post is however "endorsed by editorial team" whatever that means. [20] doesn't look reliable, author has no credentials and I see no editor oversight mentions, plus [21] has the same content. Don't know who is copying who, but it sounds like a press release/promo feature. So that's 1 okay and 1 situational source. I searched for more Russian sources, but came up empty. This doesn't change my !vote yet, but I'm hoping you can find at least another in-depth reliable source. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aargh! That's all I could find this time - I swear there were more when I checked earlier. Anyone else? Ansh666 19:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Non-notable; only sources are self-published. Miniapolis 22:55, 11 July 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. Level of readership is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eau Claire Municipal Band[edit]

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

Subject is not notable, poor citations, written like an advertisement Popcornduff (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:04, 25 June 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) 18:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local band with local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete. It makes very little sense to delete an article whose readership is significantly higher than many other articles in the same or similar categories.Villwock (talk) 15:14, 9 July 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. And salt. Sandstein 09:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synechron[edit]

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

This article has been deleted 6 times as non-notable or purely promotional and was PROD'd in June 2013 (PROD notice was removed with a statement that the company is notable). An earlier version of the article with promotional content was recreated at Synechron Technologies and I early closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synechron Technologies as merge to here. There were no arguments for keeping that article. In addition, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faisal Husain was closed in March 2013 as merge to this article. Clearly there are concerns about the notability of this company, and the sourcing does not in my opinion sufficiently demonstrate it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern is less RE notability, as it is the aggressive effort to add copyrighted spam to the article. While someone may point out to me that there is no "policy" to support it, it seems to me that our priority should be to prevent spam > keeping articles about barely notable organizations. Since the article has been deleted six times, is there a way to delete it so it can't be recreated? Can we dish out some blocks here? We need a longer-term solution that will prevent them from repeatedly re-creating the article with spammy promo. CorporateM (Talk) 20:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's deleted, it can then be "salted" (i.e., the title can be protected so that only an administrator can recreate an article at that title.) But I hope we can first reach a decision on whether it's notable. I don't think the coverage in reliable sources is sufficient, but the article has never had clear, inline referencing, so I may be wrong. And sometimes an article is repeatedly deleted and then a final time it is created in a much better form, so what the repeated deletions mostly indicate is that there is disagreement about whether the company is sufficiently notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only possible notability is the "Best Indian IT employer"'s placings. I might count it, if it were top, but it's never been higher than 5th. I agree about using promotionalism as an additional reason for deletion: AfD can consider not only notability but any policy-based reason for deletion, including the apparent impossibility of writing a non promotional article. I placed a prod on it, and yes, if it is deleted both it and the other potential titles can be protected against creation. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a substantial profile story in the Houston Business Journal and a profile about the work culture in an Indian Newspaper, as well as some shorter stories like this one. This story on their opening of a new office in Pune was covered in the print issue of an Indian newspaper.

Also, when one of their employees was kidnapped, gang-raped and murdered on their way home, after using public transport because the company did not make the company vehicle available, the police alleged the company may be responsible. This was covered by Indian Express and their response and adjustment to corporate policies was covered by The Times of India. There's quite a few hits on this story in a Google News search.

I do think that if a regular disinterested editor had an interest in the topic, an article could be made. But in the rare event that happens, they could ask an admin to unlock it. CorporateM (Talk) 05:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know really. The stories that you present here are pretty run-of-the-mill in nature and the one of the kidnapped and murdered employee is not relevant to the company itself. The company doesn't inherit the notability of a crime done to one of its employees even if the crime itself was notable, which it wasn't. As you might remember ([22]), I've struggled with this article myself trying to make lemonade out of a mound of lemons. In the end, I think there's a lot of smoke here, but no fire. At least, not yet. (Consider this a delete. Neutral about salting.) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. No independent secondary sources; whoever keeps re-creating this article has had seven chances to demonstrate notability. Miniapolis 15:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the above. Tek022 | _Comments? 20:06, 12 July 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) 03:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Home Field Advantage[edit]

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

I found no coverage. Not even a single review. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:51, 25 June 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) 18:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find any significant coverage, either; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gong show 01:16, 10 July 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 under criteria A7 by User:Nyttend. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dandenong & District Junior Football League[edit]

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

Promotional article with copyvio issues whose subject fails GNG. Andrew³²⁷ 23:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 25 June 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) 18:32, 2 July 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 North Korean studies. Nomination to delete withdrawn in favour of redirecting to North Korean studies (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 01:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-NK[edit]

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

Non-notable publication. Independent sources in the article are just in-passing mentions of the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:53, 25 June 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) 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - this is in part a vehicle for the editor who is a reasonably well recognised NK pundit and features others in a very small pool. I would say keep because the subject North Korean studies is far bigger than the little pool of scholarship, and this is as near a scholarly journal as yet exists in English (since most scholarship is in Korean University of North Korean Studies, Seoul; and Russian). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally my response to an argument like the above would be that perhaps we should merge this to the article on the editor, but given that there is no such article (and being only a Lecturer, chances are he would not meet WP:PROF), that is not an option. Apart from that, I don't see how the foregoing argument is policy based. The journal is very new (Dec. 2011), so creation of an article was probably premature. If sources come up in future, an article can be re-created, but at this point, it's just WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No he wouldn't meet WP:PROF. To be honest the above was a lazy response (AfD is where lazy editors come to zap other editors work right?) in fact this needs moving to a two line mention in North Korean studies. The subject area as a whole is notable. The creator User:Greenman100 also created Daily NK which is more notable than this one. If I had the energy to write the above I suppose I have the energy to create a stub for the article it should be a mention in. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done North Korean studies. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I therefore withdraw my nomination to delete this article in favor of a redirect to North Korean studies. --Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 4 July 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) 04:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Master PDF Editor[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Just one of many pdf editors. noq (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Uberaccount (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having been declined at AfC on lack of notability, the article was then put into mainspace. Still a lack of notability, either demonstrated or even asserted. AllyD (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PDF editor for Linux recommended by some Linux distributuons (Ubuntu) and reviewed by some Linux experts (in Russian, in Polish). Gamliel Fishkin (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Master PDF Editor is Best Free PDF Editor for Linux — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.47.55.70 (talk) 12:11, 30 June 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) 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking 3rd party refs to establish notability; the above mentioned Polish review is only a paragraph long and does not constitute significant coverage, and it is unclear whether these sources are reliable. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyard[edit]

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

Subjective, verified citations, orphan, advertisement, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep and address issues. It would seem that how this topic is presented (its tone, format, sourcing) is an addressable issue, and that coverage in such as Financial Post The Drum Ventute Beat Morning Post and Adweek et al, appear to show suitable topic notability. I should think that rather than deletion, we'd be far better off enlisting the knowledge and experience of editors familiar with writing about technical innovations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Drum is summarizing the Adweek article which hinges on the context of one of YouTube's founders investing in the company. Financial Post article is about the brothers and their house and barely mentions their company, VentureBeat and Morning Post are primarily focused on investors' Y Combinator and mention Vidyard in passing. If you take away the investment news there's nothing really left (inc. in article). Notnoteworthy (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the financial information about a copy be inappropriate content? 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many companies raise money in some form via banks, venture capital, government grants and programs etc. The act of raising money, in and of itself, does not make a company notable except under extraordinary circumstances. Notnoteworthy (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for any topic is found through it receiving significant coverage, and not the content of that significant coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable company right now. Arrangington (talk) 20:19, 18 June 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, czar · · 08:51, 24 June 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) 18:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources. Financial data is always relevant for corporations. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 11 July 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 Annapolis, Maryland#Education. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anne's School of Annapolis[edit]

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

Per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG and historic AfD decisions, elementary and middle schools are not notable. No hits on Gnews and just books with passing mention on Gbook. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Annapolis, Maryland#Education per the usual outcome for non-notable primary schools. Next time this should probably be done WP:BOLDly. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, but I would not be so bold and reckless. Some, few private grammar schools are notable. This one does not look like it's notable. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Annapolis, Maryland#Education per the usual outcome for non-notable primary schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 6 July 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. De728631 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLearn.in[edit]

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

This appears to be a false article entered for the purpose of leading to a commercial advertisement site: "References" section links to an "OpenLearn.in" web site site that leads here... http://ww2.openlearn.in/, among valid links, the "External Links" section links to to a nonexistent site "OpenLRN"... http://www.openlrn.org/ ELApro (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the second nomination for deletion of this article. Checking the History, a first nomination for speedy deletion was made 04:32, 26 May 2013‎ by 117.244.230.42 but was restored by SFK2 for reason: "not a valid CSD criteria." ELApro (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 as an article about web content that fails to make a claim to importance or significance. It appears this is one website, or "portal", of the organization OpenLRN – Open Learning Resources Network which also might be non-notable. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have tagged the article for speedy deletion per above. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 July 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 Martin Brodeur. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Brodeur[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY as a seventh-round pick who has not had a substantial amateur award and who hasn't played sufficiently in either the NHL or another professional league. My own preference is redirect to Martin Brodeur (preserving the information in the history so that, in the future he does achieve notability on his own that a revert can easily occur), but I wanted to submit to a discussion because delete is certainly a possible alternative. --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Brodeur. Has no notability independent of his father. Reso lute 19:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to failure of NHOCKEY; it's not as if anyone cares about any of the other late round draft picks. The only reason anyone cares about him is because of his father. Ravenswing 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Brodeur. Patken4 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Martin Brodeur. This AfD is not necessary as the nom could/should have redirected this article, as it is his stated preference, per WP:BOLD. Dolovis (talk) 03:22, 8 July 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) 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cladoendesis[edit]

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

The topic is not supported by secondary sources. The term on which the article is based appears to be only significantly used by the author of the paper introducing it (who also appears to be the creator and main editor of the Wikipedia article). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of the independent sources needed for WP:NPOV and failure to pass WP:GNG. Google scholar finds 5 hits (two in Russian) but they are all by the same people. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per absence of sources on GS. -- 202.124.73.12 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any other sources on PubMed or Google apart from the two included. As far as I can tell, the term appears to be a neologism invented by Dr Kluge. Per the general notability guideline, the sources do not constitute "significant coverage", nor are they "independent of the subject". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:50, 9 July 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) 04:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structural quantum gravity[edit]

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

violation of WP:SOURCE,WP:IRS,WP:SPS,WP:NOR,WP:IMPORTANCE Paspaspas (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Causes for deletion:

relies only on a single source, which is not peer-reviewed (WP:SOURCE, WP:IRS, WP:SPS).
grammar errors indicate that the author of the wikipedia article is the same as of the source; like e. g. "May be..." is used frequently in both documents. In other words: the author tries to exploit the wikipedia-page as a place for his publication and advertising his 'theory' (WP:NOR).
the wikipedia-article is just a sequence of technical expressions, which lack connection. From an expert's point of view the reference is not comprehensible as per now; even if additional sources are used it simply makes no sense.
notability of this article is rather questionable, since no third-party source is using the expression 'structural quantum gravity' or refering to the topic (WP:IMPORTANCE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paspaspas (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of the independent sources needed for WP:NPOV and failure to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per absence of sources on GS. -- 202.124.73.12 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not widely covered and therefore not notable per WP:GNG. Seems to try to present a theory not widely accepted, and seems to using Wikipedia as a platform for wider dissemination. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:25, 6 July 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. I am discounting the keep votes, because they are essentially wrong under the NEO policy. There is no need to cover the term itself. The Congress articles already cover criticisms. Editors can mention the existence of this term there, if it is indeed legit. But there's no need for a separate article about the term. -- Y not? 01:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Congressism[edit]

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

WP:NEO and not even a popular one with but 16,200 hits on Google. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism and dicdef.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write an article about it you would do better to title it: Opposition to the Indian National Congress or Criticism of the Indian National Congress. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I thought it was about criticism of the Congress of the United States. You could find lots of material on that. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep The widely used word in Indian politics. There are many sources in scholar and others. It is in news in India almost every day see for example [23] Shyamsunder (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Per user:shyamsunder. Just because the term is not big in the US, does not mean it will not be big elsewhere. Could do with expanding though.Martin451 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:NEO, usage of the term does not count. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO - "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." SL93 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is not a neologism, but the meaning of the term has no inherent meaning appart from someone being opposed to Congress, delete per dicdef. --Soman (talk) 03:43, 3 July 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore H. Okiishi[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BLPNOTE and WP:AUTHOR. Okiishi book is not meet the 4 noteworthiness requirement for Creative professionals. The attempt to apply the creative professional rules to Okiishi totally misses the point. He is an academic, not a creative professional. He is also not notable for his work in the LDS Church. There have been hundreds of bishops, counselors in a stake presidencies, stake patriarch and "presidents" of LDS Missions, none of which have pages, unless they were noteworthy for other reasons. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This editor has ignored the fact that Okiishi was a top ranking scientist and administrator at Iowa State University. That is why he is notable, because of the positions he had at Iowa State University. Beyond this, the nominator is using unjustified attack quotes, and does not even understand what Okiishi's position is. He is a temple president, and with articles on people like Stephen L. Chipman we actually do have articles on people whose most notable position may be by some summary temple president.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okiishi's most cited work was cited 179 times. I do not know how that goes for mechanical engineers, but to call him a "creative professional" indicates the person who brought the deletion nomination did not even consider him in the right light.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ How is putting something in quotes an attack. Where is is work cited 179 time? If he is so notwory becuse of his book, why dosn't the page list the title of the book instead of saying "He wrote a major textbook on fluid dynamics". If you put that information on the page, I would never have suggested that it be deleted. The pages as it is fails to show how he is notable, and fails to meet the 4 noteworthiness requirement. Other then being the "presidents" of LDS Missions, and "presidents" is a title that is totally appropriate to put in quotes, the page doesn't meet noteworthiness requirement. Rather then complain how I put something in quotes, why not improve the page to show how he is noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTEST4ECHO (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes I know what a Temple President is. My Mom works at the Los Angles Temple. WP:Assume good faith and not assume I have some issue with Mormons.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that you use the term bishop without quotes but won't write out mission president makes it clear that there is something going on other than it being a term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that you assume I have some other motive that following WP policy gose against WP:Assume good faith. I have no issues with anything Mormon. If you asked around, I am one of those who work hard to keep Mormon related pages withing WP:POV guidelines all the time. Just because you don't like something someone dose, doesn't make it an attack.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess maybe I overreacted. Still, the use of quotes is generally a way to marginzalize a reference. If you are going to say "There have been hundreds of bishops" then you might as well just say mission presidents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first link on google scholar is to his work that has bee cited 179 times. You also continue to ignore that he was a major figure at Iowa State. He is not a creative professional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 179 citations is the top listing in google scholar. People should look at google scholar for academics, especially ones in the hard sciences. The listed issue for Okiishi is really at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I would argue he has made enough contributions to the study of fluid dynamics to be notable, and may have also held a high enough position at Iowa State to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then change the page, cite him. I don't want to delete the page if it doesn't need to be. The page as written when I AFD it, didn't say any of what you are claiming.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources that exist establish notability even when they're not in the article. -- 202.124.73.20 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 202.124.74.7 (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:PROF. Subject has coauthored a standard text (Fundamentals of fluid mechanics) cited 1,880 times according to GS. Nom pretty much admits not having done a WP:BEFORE. -- 202.124.73.20 (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck out a redundant unsigned "delete" !vote by the nom. -- 202.124.73.20 (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As well as his book, his Fellow status meets WP:PROF #3. -- 202.124.74.7 (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that the author has bothered to put down the name of the book and address the notability issues, I am happy to keep the page. However, if you look at the page when I nominate it, none of this information was there. It is the page creator's responsibly to establish notability before he creates the page.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 11:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Evidence of passing WP:PROF was in the NASA bio link which existed when the page was nominated. -- 202.124.74.24 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close requested. Nominator has withdrawn and all !votes are "keep." -- 202.124.74.24 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WoS shows >300 citations to his work, a large number for a very mature research area like fluids. Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics is a standard text used in undergrad ME programs. Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn nomination. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nephi Jensen[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BLPNOTE, there have been hundreds of "president" of LDS Missions, none of which have pages, unless they were noteworthy for other reasons. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jensen was a member of the Utah State House of Representatives. Being a member of a state legislature satisfies the notability requirements for politicians. Jensen was the first president of an LDS mission in Canada. This is a notable accomplishment. He was also a judge. There is no reason for the disparaging putting of quotes around his title, which seems to indicate some sort of antagonism towards him or his position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the 75 members of the Utah House of Rep, only 24 have pages. Being a member of a state legislature doesn't satisfies the notability requirements, especially since his session in the Utah house of Rep isn't even listed, but since there arn't even session pages for the years he was alive (see List_of_Utah_State_Legislatures, as it probably has no page at all. Therefore, none of his fellow members are listed and have pages, for that reason. As for the quotes around his title, that was done to clarify that it was a specific title. The fact that you assume there is some kind of antagonism becuse of that shows how week his notability is.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It used to. The requirement used to be a straight up any member of a sub-national legislature. It has been made more complex since then, but the rules have been made much more complex without any real good justification. The reason I assume you are using it as scare quotes is because that is how such quotes are used. That said, your argument that we should delete this article because no one has created articles for other people who are also notable is rubbish. You are also ignoring he was a writer of notable tracts. What the assumption of antagonism shows is that you wrote the nomination as an attack, and are unwilling to consider the fact that the first president of a mission in a major country gains notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Keep delete~~ Being the "first president of a mission in a major country" doesn't gains notability. No other person meets the notability for that reason. If you can show that it dose than I would be happy to remove the AFD. You also say that he "he was a writer of notable tracts". All the pages say is "Jensen published many LDS tracts as well as writing multiple manuals used in LDS priesthood meeting lessons." but it is not cited, it doesn't say which ones, and even if it did, unless those tracts meet the notability requirements for Authors, it wont save his page. The page as it is fails to meet notability requirements. The entire page has issues with lack of citation.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Additionally Wp:Assume Good Faith, just because you don't like a AFD, doesn't make it an attack. I posted fact, not attacks.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Note: I struck the "Keep delete" above from the nominator; nominators are not allowed another !vote in deletion discussions, except to withdraw. However, comments are (of course) allowed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The nom can indeed withdraw, but not remove the AfD tag; although someone can do a speedy close should the nom withdraw. -- 202.124.73.20 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know what JPL means about It has been made more complex since then, because WP:POLITICIAN still accepts Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. He clearly qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN, so everything else is irrelevant to the notability question, and the page isn't so bad that it needs to be blown up; we can improve it. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was talking about was this [24] guidelines, but on looking at it again I see it was not established. So yes, we are left with Jensen having been notable as a legislator. I am not sure if he is notable as a judge, but he might be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:POLITICIAN as a Utah state legislator regardless of whether he has another basis for notability. postdlf (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. -- 202.124.73.20 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we're going to get some WP:SNOW in July. -- 202.124.73.20 (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm fine with keeping it now. The author after 2 year finally added this information. It wasn't on the page back when I AFD it.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 11:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would really help if you paid attention to the history of the article. This article was created on 17 June 2013, it has barely been around two weeks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close requested. Nominator has withdrawn and all !votes are "keep." -- 202.124.73.8 (talk) 12:18, 3 July 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 Electro house. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty House[edit]

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

Vague and completely unsourced, poorly written, no sources to be found to support its content. Also seems to be written from a personal point of view. Hiddenstranger (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search turns up nothing relibale. A Google Books search turns up a few stray references, but nothing that could be used. Seems to fail the criteria for notability.--SabreBD (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to house music. Andrew³²⁷ 12:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am fine with a redirect.--SabreBD (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-- Dewritech (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electro house. "Dirty house" as a term is used occasionally in reliable sources [25][26][27][28], but I'm not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage for the sub-subgenre to make it worthy of an individual article at this time. Musically, it appears to be very closely related to "electro house" - particularly "Dutch house", which has a section within the article - so redirecting there seems appropriate. Gong show 16:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gongshow. Plausible search term that should direct somewhere relevant. --Michig (talk) 18:56, 2 July 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) 19:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kickborn[edit]

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

Non-notable software. No independent sources to be found. The sole citation (from Science magazine's website) only mentions this product in a reader comment posted by the product's author. PROD removed by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Science magazine citation was added by me during page curation. I further checked about this Android application and find no reliable sources to establish notability. Not a noteworthy application.--Darkesthoursoflife († • ©) 11:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every phone "app" clearly does not get its own article. Perhaps the "too soon" guideline might apply. The user Harinder.pisces could put the article in their user space, while gathering the independent sources that might show up if indeed it becomes notable. On the other hand, single-author apps are unlikely to reach the notability thresholds, so perhaps this belongs in a app store somewhere and not Wikipedia. W Nowicki (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No in-depth coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT at this time. Gong show 14:36, 9 July 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) 04:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KRR Minigun[edit]

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

Article based entirely on a 1985 patent, which is a WP:PRIMARY source as far as WP:GNG is concerned. I can't find any independent sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to minigun. Not enough coverage of this firearm to justify its own article. Andrew³²⁷ 12:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG per above; not IMO a likely search term. Ansh666 06:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources of information for this gun on the internet appears to be Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors and a lone patent site. I say we delete it. If someone wants to restore it later with better references, then that would be fine with me.--RAF910 (talk) 21:12, 5 July 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) 04:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesboro Mall (Middlesboro, Kentucky)[edit]

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

Non-notable mall. Two refs, one is not independent and one doesn't provide in-depth coverage, but only a directory listing. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be on Wikipedia!!!!!! It just like saying that New York isn't notable please help me out and keep it on wikipedia, if anyone can find anything on the mall add to the page. Jesus Lover0000 (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches for significant reliable source coverage only get articles in one local newspaper. Other news and book coverage appears to be only passing mentions. Fails WP:CORP. 17:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep. I'm no fan of articles about shopping malls, but malls often are significant components of economies and of the built environments of their communities. This one is probably the biggest center of economic activity in a large surrounding region of rural Appalachia. Because I was concerned about the newbie editor who created the article and is just beginning to learn about things like notability and sourcing, I looked for sources and found a few. With an academic journal article noting the use of the mall for adult literacy classes, a more recent source about housing child-oriented literacy activities, and a Kentucky Encyclopedia article noting the mall's status as a retail center for the region, I think there is a basis for identifying this as a notable topic. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Helping I hope that it can stay on here and Orlady Thank you for you Help, patience and Kindness!! Jesus Lover0000 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enclosed malls are notable. Dough 48 72 00:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Dough above; the original sourcing issues appear to be resolved. Bms4880 (talk) 01:50, 3 July 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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. I have no doubt at all that the same outcome will result after seven days. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chili burger[edit]

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

Why is this article on wikipedia? Is it important enough for its own article? Isnt there a rule that says that there has to be something somewhere saying that this is important? Most of the article is about how other things other than chilli burgers are important like the whole history section. If they are so important shouldnt that content be in separate articles about those things? GotGlue (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Creating AfD is the account's only edit to Wikipedia. The AfD banner was not placed on the article page but I've now done this. Dricherby (talk) 09:52, 2 July 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 July 2. Snotbot t • c » 06:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. No policy-based reason for deletion has been given and the article, which hasn't changed since March, doesn't match the description in the nomination: the whole article is about chili burgers and their history. It seems well sourced, too, so there are no concerns about notability. Dricherby (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No comment on the nom, but this has already shown to pass WP:GNG by virtue of the sources. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. Concerns about a history section's scope hardly warrants deletion. I don't know if the nominator's questions are supposed to be rhetorical, but if not then those are questions that should be asked before nominating an article for deletion. - Sudo Ghost 10:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW. Nominated before and the keep case there seems strong to me. Stalwart111 11:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Honestly, I almost closed this outright - but, even with a flawed nomination, that's a little quick for me. So, keep on the merits and as per above. Plenty of sourcing here to support an article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no doubt that chili burgers are notable. Andrew³²⁷ 12:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Clearly notable with multiple reliable sources. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Suitably notable with plenty of sources. Nom fails WP:BEFORE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oknazevad (talk • contribs) 18:11, July 2, 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 keep. For the purposes of this AfD, I construed all the merge opinions as keep. I am not sure there's consensus to merge, or whether it'll be overwhelming to the parent article (or UNDUE or whatever). But these are editorial decisions to be make in the ordinary course of things. For now, we have consensus to keep this content. -- Y not? 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sarah Guyard-Guillot[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the news, nor is it a memorial. This single isolated incident amounts to an industrial accident of a high-profile company, and occupational hazard for the deceased. Any notable durable details should go into that CdS article. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cirque du Soleil. It's a significant event for Cirque du Soleil, but in a wider perspective it looks like WP:RECENTISM. Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cirque du Soleil or create an article about the woman. Quick searching turned up some pre-death coverage. Andrew³²⁷ 12:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. This is a news story. A sad and tragic one, but ultimately this is a simple workplace fatality. As to merging, the only thing that would really belong in the Cirque du Soleil article is a single sentence noting the fatality. Perhaps a second if the organization makes any changes as a result. There simply isn't much to merge that would be relevant to the organization. Reso lute 15:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTNEWS is intended to prevent the coverage of ordinary news stories. This is not an ordinary news story. It has been covered around the world in numerous languages. There is a high probability that it will have a lasting effect on Cirque de Soleil and the circus in general. Merging it to the Cirque article would give undue weight to a single event in the company's 30 year history, so a stand alone article is the best way to cover it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sampling of the vast global coverage: USA France UK Spain Russia Australia China South Africa Brazil Mexico --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage != notability. Per NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." --MASEM (t) 13:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - News != non-notability. See extensive discussion below. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, but that's not the argument I'm using. You're trying to justify "the accident was reported in papers across the world, therefore notable", but that's simply not true, for how we define notability. We're looking at enduring coverage. The question to be asking is: in a year, 5 years, 10 years, etc. how much of an influence will this event have? Because it is literally isolated to the Cirque and family and friends of the performer, very little. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedic topic because this is a news blip - of interest now but probably will be forgotten within the week (Note: this is why NEVENT advises not to create the article until enduring notability has been demonstrated). --MASEM (t) 14:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I think the writer took a great amount of time and it is important because it is the first performance death in nearly 30 years, therefore note worthy for her own article. Kennvido (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cirque du Soleil, as per Brandmeister: "It's a significant event for Cirque du Soleil, but in a wider perspective it looks like WP:RECENTISM." - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sufficiently covered in Cirque du Soleil. Hekerui (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 90% of the material is not in the Cirque article. The subject deserves more coverage than simply "An acrobat named Sarah Guyard-Guillot died during a 2013 performance". --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, if Wikinews was anything but worthless, the coverage could go there. But she wasn't notable before her death, and her death really is just a news story. The coverage you point to exists because of Cirque, not because of her. That's a harsh reality, but reality nonetheless. Resolute 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that it is because of Cirque that the coverage has happened. To clarify, by "the subject" I meant the accident+death+aftermath, not the person's career. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Until this is proven to have a long-standing effect, this should simply be summed up at Kà or CdS' main article. Beerest355 Talk 17:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cirque du Soleil. This is clearly a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. How long someone took writing the article is frankly irrelevant to whether we should keep it. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NEVENTS, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". The coverage here is indeed very wide and diverse, and demonstrated wide impact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the same page: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. " Resolute 18:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correct, but when the burst of coverage is wide and deep (as is the case here) the subject is "very likely to be notable". --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Disagree this is "deep" coverage. An accident happened, the performer died, there's mourning, the show is temporarily held to review safety procedures. No one is analyzing this any deeper than that. Wide, yes, but not deep. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrong. Here is an example of analysis within a wider context. here's another and another. That's in less than 2 minutes of searching. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        There's not much secondary coverage in that. They're re-reporting what the accident was and what the record has been in the past. It's certainly secondary in terms of Cirque overall, but not of this particular accident. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hekerui. We need non-newsy sources in order to demonstrate this incident's place in the company's history; a flurry of news coverage doesn't demonstrate the longterm significance of this incident enough to warrant this title being a bluelink. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cirque du Soleil; sufficiently notable for referencing in that article. Quis separabit? 19:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal/question - consensus so far appears to be to retain the content (via merge), but not as a stand alone article. There are concerns about over covering the subject at the Cirque article. How would people feel about a "Cirque de Soleil accidents" article that covers this event and other accidents and is summarized in the main article? That way the content is retained, the article is no longer focused on a single "news event", and accidents (which are rare) aren't given undue weight in the main article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How many accidents have happened at Cirque? Two? A separate article would be undue weight and would fail notability, and if you trim out the aspects of covering the "who" and memorial parts in this, you'd have tight-enough information to fit in the main article. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Several dozen at least (do not confuse "accident" with "fatal accident". There were two in the last week alone. No valid reason has been cited as to why the "who" shouldn't be covered somewhere - it certainly has been covered extensively by RS. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Non-fatal accidents happen all the time and I suspect most are not reported. I know that there was a non-fatal one that occurred earlier in the week but otherwise apparently unconnected. But still, the topic of "Accidents at the Cirque" is very much non-notable and would be undue. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Covering every accident in the article would indeed be undue, which is precisely why a standalone article is warranted. If it was a "very much non-notable" topic the accidents would not generate press coverage (albeit much less for non-fatal ones) when they occurred. Here's an article on past injuries showing some notability for the topic. Here's an article on their safety record from before this incident. Cirque's injury rates has even been the subject of a scientific study, normally considered the "gold standard" on notability. [29] --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & Merge to Cirque du Soleil. Very notable in terms of the company but not long term or in my own view appropriate as a standalone article.Blethering Scot 21:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cirque du Soleil. Definitely notable, but in the future it will be a footnote. This title also makes it sound like she was a murder victim more than died in a workplace accident. Nate • (chatter) 22:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think the title is fine. Most articles about the death of a person begin with "Death of..." and murders "Murder of..." So the title should stay. Unless this is just a case of my sarcasm detector failing to go off.Beerest355 Talk 23:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm intended; I always associate "Death of" with a murder article and just hate the nomenclature to begin with (the use of "death of" and "dead at" has always struck me as disrespectful). But that might be just my personal preference. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the incident is notable only because of the circus's notability. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS and NOTMEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to (likely) Cirque. Complete failure of NOTNEWS, NEVENT, BIO1E, and NOTMEMORIAL. Important to point out in Cirque's article (given how risky the performances are to start and that this is a rare death from them) but far too much weight here on the person who died. It was an accident without wider scope of impact. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The text is all well referenced and well written, so if it were to be merged, it would simply overwhelm the Cirque de Soleil article, which would then require a split to bring it down to size. Per WP:PRESERVE, the information and writing are all good, and there's no where else to put it. --Jayron32 13:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - analysis of what this means for Cirque's (or the circus in general) safety reputation have strated to emerge:[30][31][32] Analysis about an event's impact is one of the key hallmarks that an event rises to the level that a standalone article is acceptable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles are pointing back to the notability of Cirque, not this incident (though this incident predicated those articles). I can totally see a section in the Cirque article on the issues of safety and accidents, which include this death. Arguable ,that would make the current Cirque article on the long side, but the way to deal with tht is a more natural split, such as spinning out the list of named Cirque shows to a separate article or the Discography - if you consider any performing group like a musical act, this is the natural and established way to split out such articles as that information is of more detail and follows from WP:SS. Creating an article to highlight the accidents specifically has a serious chance of violating all the reasons this article is called into question, more specifically BIO1E + NOTMEMORIAL. Instead, a section on the main article to describe the various safety precautions, training, etc. that the performers undergo (from the above articles) and a paragraph or two on reported accidents and fatalities would be completely appropriate. So the merge still makes sense. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of, they are analysis of the accident, so of course they post date it. Analysis is precisely what you (and policy) want to prove the notability of an event... Second (and unrelated), every named show already has been split form the main article and only has 1-2 paragraphs of summary. There is not a single long section in the article, yet you insist that it is perfectly appropriate to have a long section on one aspect (safety record) of a massive global entity. Indeed, the appropriate way to expand the existing section is precisely "a natural split". Your insistence that it is inappropriate to have an article about the safety history of a company that sells itself on part on its safety record, has had its safety procedures analyzed by multiple sources (even predating this accident), and even has had its injury history analyzed by a scientific study is bizarre. Any undue biographical/memorial language that could in theory arise in such an article can be removed by ordinary editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - A section on the safety aspects and accidents of the Cirque would be, per appropriate weight, about 2-3 paragraphs long. Remember, we're an encyclopedia, we're supposed to summarize. To the level of detail for that, it is worthwhile to note that Cirque's performers undergo extensive safety precautions, but accidents have happened. On the other hand, the biggest factor about Cirque is that they have had a number of impressive shows and that is what they are encyclopedically known for, and where there is a lot of secondary sourcing that review these shows critically. Hence, the coverage of the show aspects of Cirque should be by far the largest chunk, and would be where spinoffs, if needed due to size, would be appropriate. The coverage of this specific accident is following the typical news cycle of any such incident that we avoid covering on WP and why Wikinews was created; this is, for all purposes, routine coverage of a typical broadly-covered news event. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kà, which has a small section called "Accidents and Incidents" that should be renamed "Death of Sarah Guyard-Guillot" (since there are no other deaths yet) and can hold the necessary information from this article. The "Background" section of this article is completely irrelevant to this woman, no one really cares about her life before she joined this circus, and the "Death" and "Reaction" section have way too much unneeded detail. I also don't see her death having a major impact on the circus as most media coverage has already died down, which means it will not likely lead to any significant reforms since circus accidents are not too uncommon. The sad truth is that if she didn't die, we would not know who she is since circus performers are generally not notable. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:36, 5 July 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) 04:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damayan Buluseño[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:CORP. Tyros1972 Talk 12:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I couldn't find any independent sources. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:04, 17 June 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, czar · · 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid that notability has yet to be established. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:00, 1 July 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, —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:26, 2 July 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 Copula (probability theory)#Definition. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N-increasing[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random math tutorials. I believe WP:NOTHOWTO is the relevant guideline. ^King Jakob _C2 01:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I object to the nominator's rationale. The issue is not WP:NOTHOWTO, but rather that the concept does not seem to meet our notability guideline. It could be that this concept is significant in some larger context, but without that context it's just a nonce. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copula (probability theory)#Definition This topic is part of the definition of a copula and is the same as d-increasing in the definition in the Copula article. I'd say merge as well, but it is not clear that the definition would be improved with this material. --Mark viking (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is clearly incorrect: this is not a tutorial, and issues connected with the way the articleis written should be fixed by normal editing anyway. The issue, as Sławomir Biały points out, is notability. There are 31 hits for "N-increasing" on ZMATH, going back to this in 1965, translation here. This seems to establish notability. Spectral sequence (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those hits appear to be unrelated to the topic of this article, though. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article needs to be (re-)written in a way which is consistent with the definition in reliable sources. Spectral sequence (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a completely different article. Nothing is stopping anyone from writing an article about something completely different. But that has little bearing on this article and this AfD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this should be redirected to copula (probability theory) or some section of that article for now. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:54, 2 July 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 04:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Copula (probability theory). The article is most certainly not a how-to or a tutorial: it's a dictionary definition. Dricherby (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Copula (probability theory) per previous comments. Andrew³²⁷ 12:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some routine cleanups on the article. I would not be particularly averse to keeping the article, but if it is not kept, I think it's clear that it should be redirected to copula (probability theory). It is a valid concept that can be clearly explained in an article, but perhaps it is used only when thinking about copulas. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:43, 4 July 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 Long Island serial killer. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Brainard-Barnes[edit]

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

Fails WP:VICTIM and WP:1E. Merging with Long Island serial killer is a possibility as well. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd go for a merge. Badly-written, too.Deb (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 June 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, czar · · 17:16, 24 June 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 04:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article on the killings: the victim is notable only for being murdered. Dricherby (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Long Island serial killer. Andrew³²⁷ 12:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MG Srinivas[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Tyros1972 Talk 11:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are reliable, therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article is severely lacking proper citations. Thought the subject might have some notability (subject won an award for one of his films) he doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER. The article at the very least needs to be reworked (text only filmography, proper citations, completely reworded article to avoid bias) but I believe should be deleted. Chimpfunkz (talk) 16:45, 17 June 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, czar · · 17:28, 24 June 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 04:53, 2 July 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 Deadmau5 discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmau5 Circa 1998–2002[edit]

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

Following up on the {{notability}} tag here, I believe this self-released compilation fails WP:NALBUMS, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Check "Deadmau5 Circa 1998–2002" -wikipedia There's a Discogs page, but otherwise it's all fan sites and downloads. There's no mention on Allmusic, and I was unable to find any reviews for the album, though I'm sure there are other editors better at finding those than me. BDD (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose This should never be a redlink, so I think AfD is probably the wrong venue. Consider merge /redirect instead to Deadmaus discography if RS do not support a stand-alone article. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are not only two choices in an AfD. You can vote to keep, merge, redirect or delete the article. It is not on an "oppose", "support" voting system. Regardless, it fails WP:NALBUMS and has not been covered by reliable sources so delete or at the least redirect to Deadmaus. STATic message me! 02:08, 20 June 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) 21:11, 24 June 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 04:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deadmaus discography. Album is not notable by itself. Andrew³²⁷ 12:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Deadmau5 discography, as the album is not self-notable. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ^King Jakob _C2 14:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Circle Track Summer[edit]

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

The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th external links are all dead links. I couldn't find any significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlinks have been addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you point me to so fix it? That page is only about editors who feel like doing something, but are afraid too. It isn't my job anyway as an unpaid volunteer who gets no appreciation. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not "pointing" you... but was rather pointing for others who might stop by to indicate that I feel your concerns for deadlinks have been addressed through regular editing. And speaking for myself, I appreciate you quite a bit... and have done so for years. I can hardly wait for you to go for the mop. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a scary process. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is quite a small film. I was able to find this if anyone wants to give a listen. The film is also mentioned in a few articles in Akron Beacon Journal (not available online), but none of these mentions are significant enough. I'm leaning toward deletion per WP:GNG but would like to see what others can find. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per just pushing up on WP:NF. Please compare What was nominated to the improved version. Through the Wayback Machine I found screen-shots of the defunct "official website" which led me to independent sources speaking about this film.[33] I am "weak" due to the coverage being as local as is the film. Perhaps someone will find DVD reviews now that DVD has have given it a wider audience? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 25 June 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, czar · · 04:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the film appears notable on a local level. I could not find any guidelines that said a topic was not notable if the coverage was too local, and I feel like there is enough here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:40, 5 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis CI[edit]

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

While it might be used quite a bit, Travis CI doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion in WP:NSOFT. Furthermore, most of its references are primary sources. The ones that are not are non-reliable sources or blogs. In addition, I didn't see any other reliable sources from searching around in Google. It is also an incredibly short article. If consensus is not to delete, this article needs some serious work on content and references. Vaca tion 9 02:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is included on the Python Guide [34] arguably one of the main Python tutoring resources. Sebastian 17:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tian2992 (talk • contribs)

From WP:NSOFT:

"Coverage of the software in passing, such as being part of a how-to document, do not normally constitute significant coverage but should be evaluated. Inclusion of software in lists of similar software generally does not count as deep coverage."

Vaca tion 9 14:57, 24 June 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, czar · · 04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes, it seems to be in use quite a bit: [35], [36], [37], [38]. Also Sebastian's argument is valid. In my opinion, we could keep or merge and redirect the information to Continuous_integration#Software, it would be better service to our readers than deletion. It is an incredibly short article ... well, here is how our article on Banana started. See WP:NEGLECT. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NSOFT is an essay, not a guideline or policy. I have added some of the links provided by Vejvančický as sources - thanks. In what way are the InfoQ and LA Times Data Desk sources not reliable? Also, in relation to importance, other than what is stated in the article itself:
"What Github did for sharing code, Travis CI will do for testing code. The value of this service cannot be overstated. Travis CI is a paradigm shift. The world will be a better place when every open-source developer is running their test suite on Travis CI."
- Brian Ford - from [39]--greenrd (talk) 06:16, 28 June 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, czar · · 04:14, 2 July 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) 04:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Psychology of Cognition[edit]

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

This is an essay written for a course, a content fork of Evolutionary psychology and Cognition; it's been abandoned since the end of the course. WP:MOS is observed more in breach than observation. Lack of online sources limits the number of potential contributors to those with physical access the a research library. Conceivably an article could be written on this topic (and I have nothing against the topic per se), but it would be less work to start over. See also the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 18 June 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, czar · · 04:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. Ansh666 02:47, 26 June 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, czar · · 04:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per WP:DYNAMITE. Andrew³²⁷ 12:42, 2 July 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) 04:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Bowie[edit]

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

Insufficient non-PR sources to support notability. In my opinion, unwisely accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from passing mention sources, the main reference here is the Profile Halifax article, which may not be a full WP:RS and is effectively an up-and-coming profile. Political advisers and staff are by definition in the back room so get less attention, but I am not finding anything which could confirm attained notability. AllyD (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:00, 18 June 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, czar · · 04:02, 25 June 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, czar · · 04:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article relies mainly on sources which mention his name in passing but fail to be about him in a meaningful enough way to even get him past WP:GNG, let alone WP:POLITICIAN — and the only one which is specifically about him ("Profile Halifax") does not count as a reliable source at all. Given that this article was its creator's only contribution to Wikipedia to date, further, I suspect but cannot categorically prove conflict of interest editing by a personal friend or colleague of Mr. Bowie's. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a better version can be written and sourced, but this version is not cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All hail Google; conflict of interest proven. I've located a Nova Scotia government staff directory which confirms that while Mr. Bowie was working in Jamie Baillie's office, he had a colleague whose work e-mail address exactly matches the creator's username. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 2 July 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. NW (Talk) 18:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khieu Thavika[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. recent discussion on WP:BIO showed ambassadors are not inherently notable. gnews comes up with statements by him as a govt spokesperson not an ambassador. in any case this does not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this person can be reliably identified and linked to events and sources. --Klein zach 03:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he's a notable politician, but it's very difficult to find Khmer sources on-line, let alone translated into English. Between 1998 and 2001 he was quoted nearly weekly by The Cambodia Daily as the spokesman for the Council of Ministers. By 2006 he was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In addition to representing his country to Russia, there are a number of articles mentioning him in the context of Estonia. This translated article indicates that he was interviewed by a newspaper about his appointment as ambassador. He's also published a study on Cambodia's foreign policy since 1993. I've also found evidence that he's been granted fellowship in the Cambodian Academy, but I suspect it's not a very independent establishment. Pburka (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know all these references are for the same person? --Klein zach 07:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Estonia, the Cambodian Academy, and the Under Secretary of State the connections are explicitly stated in the linked articles. I am presuming that the spokesman for the council of ministers (2001) was the same person, as it seems like a plausible career path and the dates work, but I can't be certain. Note that in some references his name is Romanized as Khiev. Pburka (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confident about these sources why not put them in the article? --Klein zach 12:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is irrelevant to the current discussion. We're not discussing the quality or scope of the article. We're discussing the notability of the topic. Pburka (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is relevant. In fact the article is the subject of this Afd. The references should underpin and develop the article. If references are only provided for the Afd, the encyclopedia will not develop. I've seen a lot of this kind of thing recently and I think it's a misuse of Afd. We should remember that the article comes first. Klein zach 02:38, 21 June 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, czar · · 04:01, 25 June 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, czar · · 04:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Allowing for the difficulty of sourcing, there's enough material for notability. Even if not all ambassadors are notable, the ambassador of a country to a major power is very likely to be. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is going to be expanded and sourced to a much better version.Jeff5102 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 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 Synechron. Early closure, article was elegible for speedy deletion under criterion A10. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synechron Technologies[edit]

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

Probably notable but as written is highly self serving. Written like an advertisement. reddogsix (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I would recommend a speedy deletion under WP:G11, as it is currently nothing but an advertisement in its current form and I can see no way to change that.--RPhilbrook (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Speedy) Delete~~ (Changed my mind, Erpert's right but I edit-conflicted with them, see below). This is a fork of Synechron, restoring puffery previously removed from that article (I wondered why the accessdates for the references were mostly back last year, and went looking at the creator's past edits.) I have cut back this article so it's now a lot leaner, but we definitely don't need two of 'em. The nominator may want to AfD that other article (which has additionally had a history of copyright violations), and note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faisal Husain closed as redirect to Synechron. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Synechron for now. If that article is indeed kept, it might need some TNT considering it appears to have been written by an employee of the company. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this discussion, convert this article to a redirect to Synechron, nominate Synechron for deletion. (Sorry about long !vote and messy change of my mind, but this seems the best way to proceed.) Yngvadottir (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A10. Hairhorn (talk) 15:15, 2 July 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. Can be recreated if the sourcing situation improves. For future reference, the entire contents were: "Thongsavanh Phomvihane is a Lao diplomat and a former Ambassador of Laos to Russia". Sandstein 09:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thongsavanh Phomvihane[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. a mere 2 gnews hits excluding the WP article. a discusion on WP:BIO resulted in no consensus for automatic notability for ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless some significant references are found. Dips don't have automatic notability.Klein zach 03:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 18 June 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, czar · · 03:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:POLITICIAN (he's currently Director General, Party Relations Department of the Commission of the External Relations of the CC LPRP[40]) or merge to Ambassador of Laos to Russia. Pburka (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a Director General is head of a department not an elected official like a policitian. I don't see him meeting WP:POLITICIAN. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians don't need to be elected to be notable. A politician "is a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making. This includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions." Pburka (talk) 11:35, 28 June 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, czar · · 04:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete suffers WP:O and too little information or WP:RS to keep it in. For example, was he ambassador a few years ago? During the Cold War? In the 18th century? At the court of Ivan the Terrible? We cannot figure it out from the article, thus making it useless. Maybe if someone rewrites it and expands it, I will change my position.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 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. No judgment on whether a redirect might be useful. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice (U.S season 6)[edit]

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

Way too early (Feb. 2014) and unsourced (WP:FUTURE). Musdan77 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too soon for an article. SL93 (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to The Voice (U.S. TV series) per WP:CRYSTAL for now and bring it back when season 6 is imminent. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article. WP:TOOSOON — Wylie pedia 09:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Season 5 hasn't even aired yet! The article has too little content that could possibly be written on a future season, only being based on the single piece of information that the coach line-up's changing once again. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks ✿wiki 13:14, 27 June 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, czar · · 04:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references found on this article. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing is that why plan ahead that early? It's only July of 2013! I would wait around at least 2014. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I guess a redirect would be okay, as well, but Season 5 does not even start for nearly three months. Gong show 16:41, 2 July 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Management Professional Society[edit]

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

Spammy article with few outside sources. References a CV, another wiki, and some consulting sites. Fails WP:ORG L Faraone 23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am currently gathering many outside sources references to provide/incorporate -- frankly, I could use some assistance in figuring out exactly what needs to be done and changed on the page to bring it up to standards. Drdan01 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this organization's page is justified under WP:ORG: Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations: Non-commercial organizations[edit] "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources. Additional considerations are: Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements...." Regarding the above, this organization has 120,000 members worldwide (therefore international in scale), and is recognized as the only international in scope knowledge management professional society, and has existed since 2001 (longevity - longer than any other KM association). Regarding LFaraone's above comments, the CV and web site citations were in reference to the named individuals (who are in themselves notables within the knowledge management community) and weren't intended as outside source secondary references for the organization itself. Given the above, I believe that the organization meets the criteria, in the same way that Project_Management_Institute does. I'll work on assembling and documenting the secondary source citations to add to the page. Drdan01 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no source for those membership numbers. The main issue is there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the subject independant of the organization itself and its members, let alone significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This isn't a judgement on the organization, but is mainly related to whether a reasonable encyclopedia article can be written about it that meets our guidelines. L Faraone 14:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hear what you're saying but I think that you've misunderstood my above -- I have found those secondary sources, but haven't yet had the chance to make revisions and additions and will get to that shortly. Drdan01 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 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, czar · · 03:40, 25 June 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, czar · · 04:03, 2 July 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) 04:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QP (rapper)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 02:05, 25 June 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 June 25. Snotbot t • c » 02:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:08, 25 June 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, czar · · 04:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Non-notable rapper who has never charted, how Bone Thugs-N-Harmony could be considered an associated act of his is anyone's guess, and the article appears to be at least three years outdated (his album is "scheduled to be released in the summer of 2010"?). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO as never charted. Moreover no significant coverage by reliable sources. Finnegas (talk) 14:02, 6 July 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) 04:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kerfew[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 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 June 25. Snotbot t • c » 06:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 13:05, 25 June 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, czar · · 04:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Yet another non-notable rapper who never charted. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Curfew as a possible spelling mistake. This could have been A7 speedied ({{db-bio}}) because of the complete lack of importance that the article demonstrates. Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 2 July 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) 03:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hargensen[edit]

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

Comment, per nom. No indication of why the topic is notable, and almost all the material in the article is plot material from primary sources. Out of the 1,445 words in the article, 1,397 are entirely plot material from the primary sources (the novel and its adaptations). Of the two secondary sources in the article, one supports the statement that she's the main antagonist in the original novel, and the other supports the statement that Portia Doubleday is playing her in the 2013 remake (neither of which explains notability), totaling 48 words, or 3.4% of the article. That's it. No mention of her real-world significance that is independent of the novel and its adaptations, and the articles for them. All of this can fit into those articles. If this article is to be kept, then someone should at least explain what the character's real-world impact or significance is independent of the primary sources. Nightscream (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. (Note to closer: Link to original nom, now included in expanded rationale.) czar · · 17:37, 24 June 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 June 17. Snotbot t • c » 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the character does not appear independent notable to warrant a stand-alone article. Carrie White seems appropriate, and I think any real-world context about this character can be mentioned in that article or in the individual film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:03, 18 June 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, czar · · 17:37, 24 June 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, czar · · 03:59, 2 July 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 close. Discussion has been bundled here. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Roommate Mario episodes[edit]

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

Non-notable set of four YouTube clips. Originally PRODded but uploader removed the tag. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:55, 2 July 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 All speedy deleted by Tokyogirl79. (Non-admin closure) Ansh666 06:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC) (If you think I shouldn't have closed this for any reason, drop me a comment at my talk. Thanks!)[reply]

My Roommate Mario[edit]

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

Non-notable set of four YouTube clips. Originally PRODded but uploader removed the tag. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable web content.reddogsix (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- WP:A7 Non notable web content with no indication of importance or significance. Ducknish (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Many YouTube videos become viral, but this series hasn't. I am also going to nominate this at TfD. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Much as I love me some Daneboe, these aren't notable (yet). A mention at Daneboe might not be out of order, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Main article has been speedied under A7, and I've nominated one under G8 and the other under A7 as well. Ansh666 06:33, 4 July 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 close. Discussion has been bundled here. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Roommate Mario (My Roommate Mario's pilot episode)[edit]

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

Non-notable set of four YouTube clips. Originally PRODded but uploader removed the tag. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has no sources and no notability.--RPhilbrook (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - WP:A7, non notable web content with no claim of significance or importance. Ducknish (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:56, 2 July 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) 04:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koursakoff Autorevolver[edit]

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

Article based entirely on a 2004 patent, which is a WP:PRIMARY source as far as WP:GNG is concerned. I can't find any independent sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main sources of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or Wiki mirrors. The articles only reference is an online patent search and the entire article is 3 sentences long. See following..."The Koursakoff Autorevolver is an automatic revolver of Russian origin. It was designed by Alexandr Alexandrovich Koursakoff of Moscow. The Koursakoff Autorevolver is a six shot recoil operated revolver that tilts to cycle its operation." There is no information on Wiki or any other site that suggest that this is a notable firearm--RAF910 (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG per above. Ansh666 06:39, 4 July 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naver (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page disambiguates Naver and Strathnaver. These pages already contain hatnotes, so the disambiguation page is unnecessary. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the hatnote in Naver does the same job. (I removed the other one in Strathnaver.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons above. It's hard to see any reason to keep this page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well, there is another possible article, the danish design furniture line, as well as the the Naver Athletic Club. Regards, Gott 00:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the addition of Naver Athletic Camanachd Club identified by Mottengott. (The furniture line isn't considered until after there's an article.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still unnecessary. A hatnote is sufficient on those pages. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is no longer necessary to create it, nor, having been created withmore than two entries, is it necessary to delete it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Macedonia salute[edit]

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

There are no sources in the article and it's impossible to find a single one to support the reliability of its content, which makes it a classical example of original research. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely, this seems to me like some very original research indeed. I'm for removal. B. Jankuloski (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or redirect to United Macedonia. If there is such salute, it has no separate notability from the concept.Jingiby (talk) 06:01, 3 July 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.