Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 November	30 November >

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. Mike V • Talk 06:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issa Ndiaye[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Contrary to the assertion of the article, he did not play in the 2012 Olympics. PROD was contested on the grounds that plays for the Senegalese U-23 team, which does not confer notability, and based on the mistaken assertion that he was part of Senegal's Olympic squad. While he was one of the stand-by players (see this) but was not called to, much less played in the Olympics which would be necessary to meet WP:NSPORT. More importantly, he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources meaning the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AS Douanes (Dakar). Any athlete must pass strict criteria before becoming eligable for their own articles. For now, I'd redirect since articles about minor league teams often have redlinks to potential articles, encouraging someone to create articles like this one. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 09:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - didn't join the squad in the Olympics, so he doesn't meet that criteria. Additionally he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – absence of significant coverage. C 679 16:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nickk Dropkick[edit]

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

Seems to be a case of WP:GARAGEBAND. There doesnt seem to be any reliable sources, and I couldnt find any with a cursory google search. Benboy00 (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I cited in my previous PROD nomination: "No evidence of meeting notability for musicians. I can find no substantive, independent mentions in reliable sources, being sure to discount reprints from the Death Cartel article. I checked for his real name, Nicholas Roy II, and his alter-egos N3RGUL and Feed the Infection as well and found no adequate sources." I also scanned the cited archive PDF of an issue of the student paper at the University of Waterloo and didn't see where it mentioned him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete per Bearcat bellow. His band was featured in the university newspaper (I am not of the opinion that it establishes notability for the band, as I noted at that AfD). He also had an article in the Kitchener Post about a social experiment that he ran involving charity. The article was more about the experiment than him, in my opinion, but he was still featured in it. What seems to tip into the keep direction for me is that he will be featured in an upcoming documentary [1]. While all of these on their own are not enough to establish notability, I do think that they establish enough notability together to keep him. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm just being blind or not, but where does that say he's going to be in a documentary? Benboy00 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. I just assumed that they were featuring him on their website because he was in the documentary, as that is what his article claimed, and I was searching in regards to that, but he is not directly mentioned as being in it. I still think that is what it suggests, and I do think that it do still think he is a borderline case. I'm still for keeping him, but like I said, it is a weak keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, who knows if it will be a notable documentary or if any reliable sources will mention his involvement with it? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the Kitchener Post is not a major daily newspaper that would pass WP:RS; it's a limited circulation community weekly. So while it would be acceptable as a supplementary source once his basic notability had been covered off by better ones, it's not enough to demonstrate notability if it's the only non-primary source that can be provided. And the Imprint references, for the record, are clobbered by the fact that the topic himself is a contributor to the Imprint, meaning that while the paper might be a legitimate source in some other contexts, it's a primary source in this one. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks Bearcat for explaining the sources. With that context, I have changed my !vote above to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources at all. I think this might be the first time I've seen a Wikipedia article listed in the references of a Wikipedia article. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It happens quite a lot in wp:garageband articles. Benboy00 (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, keep kicking around and you'll start seeing it happen a lot more often. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article relies almost exclusively on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, with only one article in a local community weekly newspaper being sufficiently independent — and even that article serves only to confirm his real name, while completely failing to actually demonstrate his notability to an international readership. None of the other sources are valid ones. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Kitchener Post is a community newspaper, and as such does not advance notability. The Imprint is the student newspaper at the University of Waterloo, and does't even really qualify as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Beaman[edit]

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

promotional article for self published writer -- worldcat shows her most widely held book is in only 20 libraries. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are seen at homepage media section but they are about or promotional. No real independent coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I recall, we typically only give articles to Reality TV contestants who win their season (or get a few other points of Notability such as Richard Hatch (Survivor contestant)). Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Top Chef (season 1)#Contestants. Agree with above on lack of notability, but we can redirect to the Top Chef season in which she competed.-- Whpq (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whats Hot Magazine[edit]

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

No indication of any notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have to support as per nominated as well. I have done news searches and haven't found a result only result was this article on Wikipedia. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable website storefront that sells "What's Hot Magazine iPhone Cases". Unable to verify existence of an actual magazine. Looks like spam but maybe I am missing something. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

123 Tequila[edit]

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

Without secondary sources, there is nothing to indicate that this product meets the notability guideline at WP:PRODUCT. VQuakr (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this[2]. However, the Wikipedia article reads like a promotion piece, and I'm not finding anything else that substantiates notability. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unredeemable spam. -- Whpq (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable and is rather spammy. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The canadian navyers[edit]

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

not notable enough ThatRusskiiGuy (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I cannot identify the subject. I went to Google and got no help there. It reads like a plot summary or a cover blurb from a book or review. Tagged for WP:CSD#a1. Dloh cierekim 23:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3. Some kid had too much time on his hands. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Jimfbleak as WP:CSD G11. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grief and Loss with Abortion[edit]

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

This is an essay and call for action, not an encyclopedia article. ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a call for action essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Any new, factual, referenced info would better serve in a section of Abortion. In fact, most of the encyclopedic content is already present in the main article. SO, Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor is it a publisher of original thought. This is at best a content fork and possibly a candidate for CSD#G10. Dloh cierekim 18:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Loco GLC[edit]

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

Very lightly sourced article about an unsigned rapper. Seems like a case of WP:GARAGEBAND. Benboy00 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 19:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lexx#The crew. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

790 (robot)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Lexx through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lexx#The crew. Funny character – but not independently notable. This is more suited to a Lexx fansite or Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lexx#The crew per nomination. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mike V • Talk 06:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Globe FC[edit]

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

Already deleted via AfD before. Club fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Club never played in a national division of national cup. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - non-notable club. Giant Snowman 08:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; deletion arguments from last AfD still stand. C 679 16:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT non-notable club that will likely not ever be notable. If it does become notable, it can be unsalted. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ongville Commercial Complex[edit]

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

Totally unremarkable, common shopping mall, no claim to notability, fails WP:N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While malls are sometimes considered notable if they are prominent or are of significance to the community it serves, this one doesn't seem to be the case (note that I visited Lucban a few months ago and I don't recall encountering the mall that is the subject of the article.) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to Narutolvehinata5 reasons, I think it is significant to point out that the article itself doesn't even try to establish notability beyond the fact that it is a location that exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 14:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reynaldo Ruiz[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable comedian lacking GHits and Gnews of substance. Article references are trivial or primary, lacks non-trivial secondary support. The award may support notability, but needs more referencing. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I followed the link you suggested and found the following news in Google {Find sources: "Reynaldo Ruiz" – news}

http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/politica/31837

http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/variedades/65610

http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/variedades/32428

http://archivo.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2009/mayo/13/noticias/revista/

Those are Newspapers for Nicaragua and there you have the online version of the paper editions.

You can can confirm with locals news about Rey Ruiz and J.R. with INN. They are well now nation wide in their country. Article references were found online. So do the ones I added here for your review when I followed your suggestion. Last link found said in fact they are know as the kings of Nicaraguan comedy at the first line first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rey792003 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The articles you pointed to are trivial mentions of the subject and do not support notability. All articles must be supported by independent, verifiable references. reddogsix (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm of Nicaraguan descent and I can confirm La Prensa and El Nuevo Diario are the two major newspapers of Nicaragua, it'd be like saying Los Angeles Times and NY Times. While it seems he has received a handful of coverage despite that some of those are minor mentions, it seems he may be more notable as part of the Nicaraguan News Network and TV programs. A Google New search with "Reynaldo Ruiz Nicaraguan News Network" even provides several of the listed Nicaraguan news articles. A search at La Prensa website lists additional articles but none substantial. A search at El Nuevo Diario provided pretty much the same. This article supports their touring in Miami but it's minimal at most. He's a regionally-known comedian that has received local coverage but nothing even much to support an article. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister. References prove that he exists but doesn't make him notable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 14:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeath os[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Article was basically copied from Cr OS Linux, version numbers and all, so how would most of it even be true? —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears entirely non-notable. Article has no sources that would prove otherwise. — daranz [ t ] 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find sources to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Linux distribution/software article of unclear notability. Lacks independent RS references. A search did not reveal any significant coverage, just (mostly non-english) blogs and download sites. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fernando Paulon[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the topic is clearly notable. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 20:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Web mapping[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT. Very poorly referenced, and is appallingly written; I have already removed two sections per WP:NPOV but I think it would be better starting again from scratch. Laun chba ller 10:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree it is a poor quality article, but not so bad that it needs to be blown up and start over. IMO, the title is also awkward, maybe move it to Online maps? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it has a decent framework, and most of the errors are in lack of citation. Writing, etc. can be cleaned up. Sorry if my comment is formatted weird, it's my first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstockto (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you should say that, I arrived at this article having typed 'advantages and disadvantages of online mapping' for an ICT task and thought that it should be at online mapping. I still stand by that thought.--Laun chba ller 16:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions remain divided about whether or not the subject meets our inclusion guidelines. Sandstein 10:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Spielberg[edit]

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

Nominated by User:69.142.93.67 with no deletion rationale specified. --Michig (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion. Subject is not notable. There are tens of thousands of working musicians around the country. They can't all have Wikipedia pages.Balloftwine (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Incomplete nomination from an anonymous editor who gutted the article before nominating. No rationale for deletion provided. The subject has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Here's a few examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] - there are plenty more. --Michig (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also this edit from User:Balloftwine. --Michig (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Never heard of this musician, but that's okay. That's what we have encyclopaedias for. Looking at the sources and the discography stretching back twenty years, the subject is clearly notable. Why wasn't this raised on the article talk page first? --Pete (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Michig (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO through non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which can be easily seen from the references in the article. — sparklism ^hey! 13:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A bit too dependent on local news sources but there are enough of them and they are non-trivial, while an entry at AllMusic helps the case. Also the nominator may not have initiated this process properly. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I put this on the talk page first then realized there was an AfD page. Previous comment: This may be due to my lack of knowledge of the music biz, but I'm troubled by the article's discussion of her cd sales. She's released over a dozen records with sales in the hundreds thousands but SoundScan only reports 1800 for the early ones? And since 2000 she has been with the label that she started herself. This does not seem to meet notability. Her article rests on her international touring which is already vague and weak and her discography and commercial success which seems weak to me. The rest is about her early stage activities and her only book which is a memoir published this year. B Hastings (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being on their own label in no way makes an artist non-notable. As the article makes clear, the bulk of those sales (which were during the first few years of her music career) were in outlets not recorded by SoundScan. You can also look at the cited sources for more detail. Notability here is largely based on WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC criterion 1, which the subject quite easily meets. The rest is simply sourced detail about the subject - we don't only include facts which have a bearing on meeting notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about an artist being on their on label disqualifying from notability; that is not automatic. What I was more concerned with was the record sales. The article (and the notability of the subject) rests on commercial success. Crit 1 of WP:NMUSIC requires multiple, non-trivial, reliable and independent sources. The 160K - 200K record sales in the cited article was quoted from the president of the subject's label. That fact is not independent or reliable. The other source dealing with the commercial success of the subject is mostly focused on the fundraising or charitable nature of the performance. If nothing else, I hope that we can come to the consensus that the article needs to be edited to reflect the genre-specifc or specialty work of the subject (new age). B Hastings (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is filled with strange name-dropping and sources that don't seem to have anything to do with the name (like William Macy) being dropped. I might vote keep with SUBSTANTIAL edits to remove the blatant puffery but every time I try to delete that I get blocked. Does anyone agree there's way too much self-promotion going on? Real musicians do not do this. There is no real criticism on her page, just puffery. No music criticism. Balloftwine (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. If you think the article is unbalanced, the way forward is not to delete every positive mention and then call for the article to be deleted entirely! --Pete (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was doing. I would like to continue doing that. Unbalanced is the wrong word. Advertising and puffery are the right words. Fatpedro (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This person may be notable, but that question is heavily obscured by the problematic content: anon SPA editing (which BTW appears to be from an IP address in the same small town in which the subject currently lives), guarding/restoring promotional text, wall of stats that read like WP:RESUME, name dropping and other un-encyclopedic content, lots of WP:OR, etc., as well as the article's tug-of-war history among interested editors. It would be good if the proponents could step-back a little and allow the article to be reduced to a shorter, strictly encyclopedic description of the subject that is well-sourced. A much more reasonable notability debate could then be had. Agricola44 (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails Notability standard WP:Music. No verifiable existence of the record label. No verifiable musical training. No verifiable serious article on musical quality. Coverage is largely trivial, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Has not met standard of being a prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Fails Wikipedia: Composers. Fails WP:NSONGCritic11 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is padded with insubstantial details and odd references that make it hard to establish notability. I can imagine a case for keeping, but at this point that's not very clear. Scholiasticathanasy (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, this discussion is really attracting a lot of editors who have previously had little involvement at AfD, who are all !voting delete. Or is it actually a smaller number of editors editing under multiple names? --Michig (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by relister: I have relisted this because, as pointed out above, the level of puffery in the article made it difficult to decide on the question of notability. User Agricola44 (talk) is attempting a cleanup (see note on article talk page) by " discarding all unsupported text and all text supported only by citations from websites, local news outlets that seem to announce performance dates, and sources with only a trivial reference to Spielberg." Relisting will give time for the revised article to be considered: I suggest that those who have already !voted revisit it and decide whether it changes their opinions. JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took time off for the US Thanksgiving holidays (as I imagine many did). I will try to finish cleanup over the next few days so that a more objective assessment can be made. ~~I want to emphasize that I see my job here strictly as cleanup. I will not weigh-in here with an opinion on notability.~~ ADDENDUM: SEE MY !VOTE BELOW. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I am now experiencing the same phenomenon of interested editors guarding this article, e.g. this a revert of deleting a concert announcement in a local, small town newspaper. I do not think this article can get a fair evaluation for the notability of the subject until these eds step away and allow disinterested parties (who will not render a !vote) to remove the WP:PUFF. What to do now? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It supports our statement that she began piano training at the age of seven. I notice that you also deleted a mention in the New York Times. if the NYT, Washington Post and so on are talking about the subject, I suggest that that is an indication of notability, and it is disingenuous to remove these sources and then complain that the subject is not notable! --Pete (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're assertion is incorrect. There are few NYT's in the article. The one I deleted by Gussow had only the trivial mention "...and a background score by Robin Spielberg that finds plangency...", suggesting you're either mechanically guarding the article without bothering to read/eval the individual sources or you're not familiar with the guidelines that define what constitutes acceptable WP:RS. The one by Zeff discusses Spielberg in a substantive way and will remain. Please appreciate this difference. Will you and the other proponents now step back and let a so-far-disinterested editor try to redact the WP:PUFF? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The mention in the NYT is neither a trivial mention in the WP sense of the word, nor puffery likewise. The subject looks to be widely notable and I suggest that you refrain from deleting useful sources while this discussion is underway. Perhaps you could raise your concerns on the article talk page and we can discuss them there? --Pete (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mention is most certainly trivial by the very definition in WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Given the history that I've read and what I've now experienced myself, it is now sufficiently clear to me that this article is being guarded. The only remedy is to start over and I will !vote as such. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

WP:TRIVIALMENTION is for cases where a single sentence in a single source is being used to establish notability. That is not the case here, as notability is established through multiple sources. And, as notability is clearly established in many good sources, why are we having this discussion at all? Cheers. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And may I ask why you are using bullet points to continue discussion? WP:INDENT serves well enough for the rest of us. --Pete (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing around WP:OWN just because someone disagrees with and reverts one of your edits has no justification. If you check the article history I restored the text of the article that had been deleted (which was pretty much ALL the content of the article) and was then in the process of sourcing what could be sourced and removing what couldn't or didn't add to the article. I was half way through this when other editor(s) started deleted chunks of the article without justification. I stopped while an investigation into this editing/!voting was carried out, and that is still ongoing. The article still needs work, but let's get this AfD out of the way first. The subject clearly satisfies WP:GNG if nothing else. Don't confuse a sourced statement with a claim of notability - information has to be reliably sourced (but the source doesn't have to constitute significant coverage), but it isn't necessary for every statement to contribute to notability, and relevant sourced content is not 'puff'. --Michig (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you continue to dance around the big picture of this article, which is the following: There are numerous statements of minutiae that are designed to puff-up the subject and these are all cited with sources that are nothing more than trivial mentions, web pages, and such. We look no further than what was just restored "...directed by William H. Macy and adapted by David Mamet". There is no need to drop these names, as they are related to the play, not to Spielberg directly. In other words, this statement wants Spielberg to WP:INHERIT from Macy, et al. There are also numerous unsourced statements, "The Poet and the Rent and The Revenge of the Space Pandas, two children's plays by David Mamet" – name-dropping (puff) again...ad nauseam. These are not encyclopedic contents related to Spielberg, not to mention that sourcing rules are particularly strict for BLPs. Now, here is the problem. The article is at AfD and any newcomer (such as I was) cannot easily wade through all of this WP:PUFF, by which I mean all the minutiae unsourced or sourced with trivial mentions, to get to only those text and sources that are meaningfully related to assessing notability. Your systematic reverts are obstructing this process and, in my experience, the only realistic option in such cases is WP:NUKEANDPAVE, which I advised below. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Let's get this AfD out of the way first. Please. --Pete (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there isn't a basis for an objective AfD until puff is out – horse before cart and all that. Anyhow, I've weighed-in below. Agricola44 (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

See also long note from the article subject at Talk:Robin Spielberg#Help request from article subject. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. A lot of the sources are routine local press coverage (although there's certainly a grey area between "X is playing Y" which doesn't count and publications using an event as a peg for a larger article which does count), but there is a sizeable article from the New York Times[10] and she's also been reviewed in the Washington Post[11] as well as multiple reviews on AllMusic, and her self-published book was reviewed in Kirkus[12]. Plus there's the 1995 Billboard article, which she's not the primary subject of, but it still provides significant coverage, so that counts too for WP:GNG. And local press coverage, which counts for less, but cumulatively it all adds up to meeting WP:GNG. And the article does need editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion, the article cannot be assessed for notability until the enormous WP:PUFF is redacted. It is clear that any effort in this direction is met by a wall of organized opposition devoted to guarding the article. It appears the only solution is WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per (non-admin closure) by -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Red White[edit]

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

I tried to find independent sources for this article and after browsing through more than 10 pages in Google search, I could not find any. Only company websites, affiliate websites and general company listing yellow pages are available, thus notability criteria are not met. I'm not putting this to PROD as I want to give a chance to others, maybe someone can come up with independent sources. Notifying the Polish Wikiproject, too. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 09:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was about to open an AfD on pl wiki, but decided to check pl language sources (since I don't think the nom speaks Polish). And I found some reliable sources: [13] in Polityka, two in Rzeczpospolita (newspaper): [14], [15], profile on money.pl [16], numerous mentions in passing at [17] . In English: [18]. I say this passes GNG. A second opinion would be welcome, but if it is also keep, I'd encourage User:Teemeah to consider withdrawing this. PS. I appreciate that Teemeah posted a notice about this as WT:POLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Would you mind putting these references in the article? Then we could close this afd. Thanks! Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 10:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. About 500 mln USD revenues, over 7K employees --Alan ffm (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added the proposed sources to the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 14:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Dragas[edit]

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

Deleted as a PROD (by myself), restored following a request at my talk page. I am thus bringing it here for wider discussion. Giant Snowman 09:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Simione001 (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NSPORTS - didn't play in a fully professional football league (the National Soccer League was semi-professional). Fails WP:GNG as the subject hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a few name-checks in match reports, particularly during his NSL stint, but nothing substantial beyond a small profile in a local newspaper. Hack (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He hasn't made any appearances for a fully professional team in a fully professional league or competition. I'll be willing to change my delete to a keep if someone can prove he made a Cup or European appearance for Red Star Belgrade. IJA (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – notability has not been established. C 679 13:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 125 greatest stars of the GAA[edit]

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

List is entirely subjective and thus fails WP:LSC and is almost certainly copyright of the Irish Independent hence failing WP:COPYVIO, see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. Spinning Spark 08:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Purely subjective list with no statistical or other measurable basis. It was created as a promotional newspaper article. So it fails WP:LSC and WP:NPOV. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjective, promotional list, as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huntlee, New South Wales[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT. Laun chba ller 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why TNT? It looks like a real project of planned development, it is discussed in the Australian media [19]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is not a mess, and is notable. --Greenmaven (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the article's notability - places are indisputable and are inherently notable. This article is an absolute tip, and I feel that blowing it up and starting again would be the best way forward.--Laun chba ller 12:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, agree with WP:TNT when the place is established rather than just a planned place. Until then the article should be titled "Planned Development of Huntlee, New South Wales" --CutOffTies (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep, though I still think it should be moved to Planned Development... but that is not policy so I'm fine the way it is. Sorry for the noise. --CutOffTies (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So ... delete or move to "Planned Development of Huntlee, New South Wales"? Btw, WP:TNT states: "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over." It has nothing to do with an established or planned place. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable topic that has received ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources. Some source examples include: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Also, the article is in rather decent shape, so also opposed to deletion per WP:TNT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to "Planned Development..." That seems to be a more appropriate title. Also, like Northamerica, I'm not entirely convinced this is a good case for TNT. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Computer Driving Licence[edit]

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

No evidence of actual notability or acceptance for the license, and a wholly promotional article - even has a section entitled "what's new" DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very widely recognised qualification with a long list of books published on the subject and many news articles on GNews. --Michig (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Keep and improve I would say it is a notable certification programme, books about the programme were published by notable publishing houses even in my country. See also:

Fast Track: The European Computer Driving Licence (The Independent)
The European computer driving licence testing software (Times of Malta)
End-users taught to recycle PCs as part of computer driving licence (Computer Weekly)
etc.

Any issues with the article content should be resolved by responsible editing, not by deletion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-known qualification, widely featured in education courses in the UK at least. My son has one lying in a drawer as I'm sure do many, many others. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator DGG is unusually (and uniquely?) mistaken here. ECDL is indeed a formal qualification which is expected or even required by some employers. Training and support is offered by numerous accredited educational institutions. (It is shockingly Microsoft-ridden but that is another matter). Maybe the article needs seeing to a bit. Thincat (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important qualification that numerous accredited educational institutions provide training for. In addition to the sources above we have the New Scientist on its launch [27], The Hindu about it being adopted in India [28], this Irish commentary that says "The European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) has unquestionably been one of the world’s best public initiatives in the field of computing for nearly a decade." [29] and its been adopted internationally as the 'International Computer Driving License'. eg [30] and even adopted by China. [31]. The page needs much work but that is an editorial matter. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tamil cinema. Ged UK 14:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Box office of Kollywood films[edit]

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

No content whatsoever. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has some content and seems to be a legitimate topic: [32], [33], [34]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any content u suggest adding can instead be added to List of highest-grossing Indian films worldwide ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can, but the sources discuss Tamil cinema, not all Indian films. What's wrong with creating List of highest-grossing Tamil/Kollywood films or something similar? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Topic should be added to parent article (Tamil cinema). If and when the info gets too much, then do a split. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death Cartel[edit]

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

I don't see evidence that this band meets the notability criteria under WP:NBAND. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I don't see any sign of notability here and it clearly fails WP:NBAND.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I updated the references to link to the archive of the student paper so as to remove the deadlink. As much as I tried to find additional sources to establish notability, I was not able to find them. If anyone could find another independent article about them, I could be convinced to change my !vote to keep, but as for now, I do not think they meet the standards of WP:BAND. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 14:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modular Wind Energy[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Local promotional or trivial references only DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. References prove existence, not notability. WP is not Yellow Pages. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In addition to the articles referenced in the article, others are found at Google News Archive. [35] Sources include the Orange County Business Journal, the Orange County Register, and Bloomberg Businessweek (a mention only) as well as trade journals. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article went through AfC. I didn't reject it there, but I offered the following afc comment:

This article needs more references to show notability. The first three do not show notability. New location, fifty employees, and new CEO say nothing about notability. The Wind Power Monthly article is a narrow trade publication that talks about MWE's segmented blade. Not clear that segmented blades are unusual -- apparently bolted designs exist but are heavier than using adhesives. The Wind Power article may be independent, but it may be cribbed from a press release: it quotes Ault and cites MWE claims. Google search doesn't turn up independent references to MWE. I would d/corp. Glrx (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a significant change from that position. MelanieN's list is shorter if quotation marks surround the company name, and those articles are more about financing than saying the company is notable.

Segmented blades may be important, but I'd like to see a secondary source for that. The article's claims for significance are a bit bare. Having a patent is nice, but that doesn't say the invention is significant. Being the first segmented/divided blade to pass the IEC fatigue test sounds significant, but there are probably many unsegmented/undivided blades that have passed the test. Glrx (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Without prejudice to any merger discussion. Sandstein 10:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ipswich Herald and General Advertiser[edit]

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

The article does not explain the importance or notability Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 05:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ and redirect into The Queensland Times, which is the continuation of this same paper. It is clearly important because it is the oldest surviving Queensland newspaper. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether merging this into the newspaper's "competition" during the period it was active is the best approach. I agree that this is on a notable topic, so I suggest keeping the article as is. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~@User:Nick-D Where does it say they were in competition? I thought the name just started changing under new ownership in 1861. --99of9 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - ~~Keep~~ Oh ok, I see "the paper merged into "The Queensland Times, Ipswich Herald, and ..." --99of9 (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merge Nope, I've changed my mind again. I can't find any material saying that they were previously in competition. One publication says "merge", but others say "sold to three former employees of a rival newspaper The North Australian", which had been discontinued a few months before. As far as I can tell there was no Queensland Times to merge with - that name was made up by the new owners, who came directly from the Northern Australian. So anyway, I've tried to expand the article, but I'm finding myself writing a near-duplicate of the history section of The Queensland Times, because it really is the same lineage. (@User:Nick-D have you found something I haven't?) --99of9 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article about a notable topic need not overtly explain its notability, when its notability is clear. This historic newspaper was published for 47 years, and its successor is still published today. The newspaper was notable back then, and as an historical topic, it is still notable today, as notability is not temporary. There is no benefit in merging the content, as readily available references already in the article show the notability of this historical topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where does 47 come from? It changed names after two years. I don't think that 2 years had significance enough in the souces to write a separate article. I agree they're notable, but notable together. --99of9 (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability appears to be established and its own article is warranted. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you decide its own article is warranted? I tried to write a separate article, and am treading exactly the same ground as the history section of the Queensland Times. All the sources are about the Queensland Times.--99of9 (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a historic newspaper. Let's cut to the chase and call this a defense on the basis of Ignore All Rules — it's a matter of common sense that articles on long-running and prominent newspapers are inherently encyclopedic. That there is no SNG low bar for such pieces (which are rarely challenged) is a systemic flaw of the AfD system, not a deficiency of this topic or this particular article. Moreover, I don't doubt in the least that published histories of the city and Australian publishing deal with the title in a substantial way. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When closing, please also consider the opinions of those discussing a merge. --99of9 (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mike V • Talk 06:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Animorphs characters[edit]

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

The selection methodology for these lists are not in line with established practices. A "list of characters in a fiction franchise" type article does not list every minor character that has ever appeared in the franchise; instead it restricts itself to the main characters and the recurring, plot-important secondary characters. Look at List of Naruto characters, for example. That series is massive, and that is reflected in the the number of characters in that list. However every character in that list is either a major recurring character with significant face time across several books/seasons, or a major character that appears only in one plot arc but has an important role and significant face time across that plot arc. When putting together that list, there are dozens of characters that didn't make the cut. Looking through these lists, almost every entry is of a "monster of the week" type character; someone or something that appears briefly, has a minor role, and then is never heard from again.

There is room for a List of Animorphs characters article, and the articles in the "Secondary characters" section of the infobox at the bottom of these lists should be merged into that page. Perhaps one or two entries from this list should also make the jump. However near-universally, these are characters without any real notability, and therefore do not warrant inclusion.

The pages in this deletion nomination are:

List of minor Animorphs characters
List of minor Andalites
List of minor Hork-Bajir
List of minor humans (Animorphs)
List of Ketrans
List of minor Yeerks

Sorry for the long deletion rationale, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable list subject. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Man...Animorphs...that takes me back. Anyway, almost all of these characters appeared in one or two books. Definitely no need for an article about them. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the problem. These articles are all bounded lists, and as the series is complete, there will be no problems with people adding new names to the list. Though I agree the characters aren't independently notable, items in list articles don't need to be independently notable unless it is a boundless category such as List of people with autism spectrum disorders. —Soap— 01:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There seem to be quite a number of characters in the series, so it is unlikely many of these need to be covered in a list of important characters. There doesn't seem to be much incentive to merge them given the rather poor quality of the writing, so nothing will be lost in case someone wishes to ever actually make a proper, encyclopedic list. TTN (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 14:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precita Valley Community Center[edit]

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

Google News search does not even turn up an occasional newspaper feature, cannot find anything online that would distinguish it from any other community center in an American urban area. I am sure it does great work, however that in and of itself does not confer notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORG Go Phightins! 05:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. References at the article are self-referential; Google News Archive provides only a passing mention and a press release. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Robinson (figure skater)[edit]

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

I am afraid she fails WP:NSPORTS Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Coverage seems to be a bit sparse, but she does meet WP:NSKATE point 4 as she and partner Peter Breen, competed at the 1996 Skate America which is a ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating event as verified in this article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Borderline, but I think this just meets WP:GNG.Squareanimal (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 14:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Paul (attorney)[edit]

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

Non-notable American lawyer. No third-party sources that show notability i.e no newspaper articles, books etc. A link to Yellow pages (yelp.com) may be 3rd party but doesn't provide any evidence of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Tassedethe (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that show notability, which have been added to the page "Michael Paul (attorney)"

News12mpaul [Video file]. (2012, July 28). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5CpUe4pFzU#t=0 Michael Paul, Esq in the Media (UPN 9 News) [Video file]. (2009, August 6). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYodK4yvbOc Michael Paul, Esq in the Media (Fox5 News) [Video file]. (2009, August 7). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph2A4C9y7KU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzpascale (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Offered sources just suggest the subject is a lawyer in cases that have gotten some press attention--nothing about the lawyer as opposed to the cases. I find no indications that the subject is notable under our usual standards. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per my standards and WP:BARE. A former ADA in one of the largest DA's offices in the nation (The Bronx), he is editor of the Criminal Defense Law Journal, and has appeared as a pundit frequently on NY metro media. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 13:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of species (Animorphs)[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of Animorphs. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two problems with this list. The first is that it's in remarkably poor shape. That, by itself, isn't a valid criteria for deletion. The second problem is that the selection methodology for the list is not in line with established practices. A "list of characters in a fiction franchise" type article does not list every minor character that has ever appeared in the franchise; instead it restricts itself to the main characters and the recurring, plot-important secondary characters. Look at List of Naruto characters, for example. That series is massive, and that is reflected in the the number of characters in that list. However every character in that list is either a major recurring character with significant face time across several books/seasons, or a major character that appears only in one plot arc but has an important role and significant face time across that plot arc. When putting together that list, there are dozens of characters that didn't make the cut. The same methodology can and should be applied here. While there are a small number of species that have significant roles in this series, most are best described as "monster of the week" type species. The small number of species that are notable are going to have notable characters, and discussion of the species can happen, briefly and where notable and relevant, in the article on those characters. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ged UK 13:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Brickell City Centre[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went into this expecting to fire a full spread of sources aimed for a "Keep", but instead found nothing but blogs, "New Times" stuff (that I recall being rubbished at RSN in the past), and one thing from BizJournals that may be reliable but isn't enough. I'd be willing to reverse my !vote if someone more caffinated can dig up stuff though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I carried out a in-depth search and found no reliable coverage from independent sources. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per the following sources:

Swire unveils new 80-story tower for 700 Brickell site. Miami Herald.
Arquitectonica-designed tower planned at 700 Brickell. South Florida Business Journal.
Swire releases new rendering for Brickell City Centre. South Florida Business Journal.

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sources that proves this proposal isn't fake.

[36]. "Emporis".
[37] "OceanFront Reality".

--Trulystand700 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the sources identified above, but (at least for now) I actually might think the better course would be a merge with the Brickell City Centre article that covers the entire project, including this proposed part of it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If this proposal goes ahead, it will be significant and might be controversial. If it is stopped before it is built, then some time in the future this article might be suitable for deletion. But, in the meantime, it meets the criteria of WP:GNG. Merging with the Brickell City Centre article is also a possibility.Squareanimal (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ged UK 13:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somerhill Gallery[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2009 the gallery closed three years ago and had only one notable artist exhibiting there. Theroadislong (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A local business with local coverage is all I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Gallery with a long history and significant regional importance asserted in the sources (first gallery in the area, sources claim importance in art scene in southeast US). The fact that it has closed is irrelevant. Notability derives from reporting on the gallery itself not who exhibited there. WP:GNG does not exclude local/regional press, even though it's general practice that local press counts for less than e.g. New York Times. It's not the Guggenheim but it's got more coverage than most private/commercial galleries. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think this just meets WP:GNG, but agree it's close.Squareanimal (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mike V • Talk 06:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous Celebration[edit]

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

Edits "13:50, 20 November 2013‎" and before may be copyvio with http://www.joyous.co.za/official/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=61:lindelani-mkhize&Itemid=148 ? (If delete, keep edits "10:35, 22 November 2013‎ Ernie Colvelle" and after.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 13:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Minton[edit]

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

Non-notable building lacking references. reddogsix (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Incomplete building development with no evidence of notability either now or when complete. The article text's focus on how easy it is to get from there to amenities strays close to advertising. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found one reliable source from 2010 - that's about it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus that the article can not stay in the mainspace for the time being. We choose then between incubation, userfication and redirect. A redirect preserves the history and gives a chance to make a merge if anybody wants to.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenstein (2015 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frankenstein#Films.2C_plays_and_television. As far as I can tell, filming has not yet commenced on this movie, although they seem to have cast most of the major players. That's enough to where I'd suggest merging a little bit of information into the main article's F/P/T section. We can keep the history so there will be something to pull from when/if it does start filming and we can un-redirect it at that point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The director's twitter says differently. Take this as you wish. Guy546^(Talk) 05:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also this, (an industry website) also says filming began on the 25th, so that is also a source to go off of. Guy546^(Talk) 05:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That sources calls it the "untitled Frankenstein project" which began shooting. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

INCUBATE temporarily per deletion policy's suggested "alternatives to deletion" as being just a tad TOO SOON. While we can accept it has begun filming and that, due to topic and principals, it will quite likely be found notable enough within a few months to be a reasonable exception to guideline, per WP:NFF (paragraph 3) it does not yet have quite enough persistent coverage to merit being an exception to guideline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userify as premature. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy would be good alternative. I agree it's WP:TOO SOON, but when the film is done and if it's notable and there is enough sources, we could have it back without unnecessarily losing data. Alex^{discussion ★} 00:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and partial merge per Tokyogirl79, pending more coverage. Userfy makes sense only if the user wants it in their userspace. Sandstein 10:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Qiu[edit]

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

Article asserts importance, but cites no sources. Presumably, if this is a primarily Chinese author, his works would be known by his Chinese name, and quick searches using the name "Edward Qiu" yields no real links of significance. Unless verifiably notable, delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can found no evidence that he exists. Without the Chinese name nor can we really know who this article is refering to. article doesn't give anything that's verifiable. Could just as well be a madlib-style test edit. see WP:V. no content changes (just style and formatting) since the first edit in 2007. If someone was going to add some kind of details to help us they've had plenty of time already. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 16:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom and Metal lunchbox. No evidence person exists, strongly looks like a hoax. The silly title "Night of Ostrich Bells" doesn't exist outside Wikipedia. "Qui" translates as 邱 and "ostrich" translates as "鴕鳥" and Google (邱 "鴕鳥") comes up with nothing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched Baidu.com using Chinese for his name, birth date, death date and ostrich. I can't find anything. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photon tracing[edit]

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

Same as Photon soup, originally AfDed by הסרפד (talk · contribs), reason="An apparently non-notable computing project that I lack the technical knowledge to describe.

I could not find any significant coverage of this project. The only sources that are not Wikipedia mirrors are (as far as I can tell):[38] (a Slashdot post), [39] (an entry (?) at distributedcomputing.info, citing the previous post and the project's homepage) and the project's homepage, http://www.cpjava.net/photonproj.html (now a dead link, archived at the Wayback Machine)." Alex^{discussion ★} 02:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Aleksa and myself. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent sourcing that establishes notability. See also related discussion here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance Camera Man[edit]

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

Delete, I'm not confident this man passes the notability guideline. He does have two articles to his credit and he is a youtube personality but I'm not convinced this is enough to meet substantial coverage and I'm opening a discussion regarding it. from one of the two sources itself "Also, there’s no way to identify this nameless filmmaker to file a complaint. " Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable local creep (or group of creeps). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. A line or two under surveillance or surveillance camera sems appropriate, not an entire WP entry. -SetagayaJ (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually think he shouldn't be mentioned there; I'm not sure SCM is a significant enough aspect of that subject to warrant mention. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There's coverage in a few reliable sources, including plenty of verifiable information to write about the subject. Obviously I think there's enough for inclusion per WP:GNG or I wouldn't have written the article, but as a good deletionist myself, I can see both sides of the question. However, his anonymity is of course totally irrelevant; I'm not sure what Hell in a Bucket's point was in noting that. It shouldn't be considered here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns mostly is what I was inferring and the fact when I think about it how can you be notable when no one knows who you are? Isn't it also possible this is more then one person? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how can you be notable when no one knows who you are?—I don't understand this question. Banksy is an example of a notable anonymous subject, if that helps you. What does anonymity have to do with notability? Wrt BLP, can you please elaborate? What is your concern? ErikHaugen (talk |

contribs) 18:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are writing about a survelliance camera man that may or my not be one person. How can we accurately write an article about a person in that situation? it may just end up like a tabloid article. I'm sorry I am on edge with this article as to keeping or deleting because it is right on the thresh-hold of keeping too. I believe deletionist's (I am one too) are very good at that sort of brinksmanship but it just barely falls outside my ideas of a keepable article at this point. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banksy could be multiple people, too! This question simply has nothing to do with whether to delete the article or not. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually misclassified as a biography about a person, it's really about a YouTube video series. Needs more than a couple local sources, and something concerning greater social significance of the videos, that sets it apart from every other youtube video series. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think these articles speak to these concerns somewhat (although I don't think GNG sets the wall above "local sources"):
- A posting in the Internet Monitor (from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society) about public surveillance: “Surveillance Camera Man” Draws Ire, Provokes Questions About Recording in Public
- An article by Cory Doctorow on Boing Boing: Surveillance Camera Man wants to know why we accept CCTVs but not a creepy guy with a camcorder
There are many others of this nature, these are the most "heavyweight" that I've found so far. This isn't the most significant subject on the controversy presented by mass surveillance by a long shot, but I think I've demonstrated here that it has gained enough notoriety to warrant inclusion as a standalone article, and certainly that it has received plenty of non-local attention. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added a couple more sources to the article and noted the Cory Doctorow post here, all of which I think help establish this subject's notability. I'd appreciate it if those who expressed a "delete" opinion based on notability grounds would indicate whether or not these new sources change the picture at all. Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard source is a blog, and with blogs we also look at who wrote it, and in this case it was written by a summer intern, so I discounted it as a reliable source (no disrespect to summer interns). Cory Doctorow is a little better but BoingBoing is so prolific on every piece of internet trivia it's hard to see it as very reliable indicator of notability, BB borders on the internet geek version of a tabloid. Maybe others will disagree but I didn't give it much weight. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those aren't particularly "reliable" as in "WP:RS", but I think they demonstrate some "social significance of the videos". There's also a Yahoo News article about it, which is RS and addresses your other point about "more than a couple local sources" (not that GNG has anything to do with local vs. non-local). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first, I thought that there was just enough coverage of this topic to put it on the keep/delete borderline, but looking more carefully at the sources I decided "no, it is well to the delete side of the border". Yes, there is some coverage of him, but not a lot, and most of it is in sources that are unreliable, parochial, or in other ways not significant. The Yahoo News item is the nearest there is to a significant source, but that alone falls well below the level needed to indicate notability. We have someone who has been doing rather trivial things which have received a few mentions in a few places, most of which are not reliable sources, and that's all. (When even the one and only person arguing to keep (the author of the article) admits Yeah, those aren't particularly "reliable" as in "WP:RS", it is clear that the "keep" campaign is on weak ground.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the not "particularly 'reliable'" ones I was talking about are the blog entries. I think the rest are, and I don't think there's much question about that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ged UK 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Social Science[edit]

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

Entirely promotional article on organization with entirely promotional purpose; distinguished board, but no evidence of actual activity DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, articles published by the UK press suggest it is a notable and active organization. See also:

Social science graduates 'have best job prospects' (BBC)
Social science graduates ‘more likely to get a job’ than science or arts students (The Independent)
Rise in extra exam marks and the positive impact of chatrooms (The Guardian)
etc.

--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Campaign for Social Science’s view. We note there are four reasons for page deletions, as given in Wikipedia’s guidelines: failure to keep to a ‘neutral point of view’, to ‘verifiability’, to the ‘no original research’ rule or to the copyright requirement. The first is dealt with usually by editing only, rather than deleting a page, the guidelines say. The last does not seem to be an issue here.

As regards ‘verifiability’ and ‘no original research’, the page has 10 references (one added since the Deletion note was published). Four of these are to national UK media such as The Guardian, three to the UK’s main magazine for the higher education sector, one to a prominent social science forum, one to an academic publisher, and one to a YouTube video. These are the sources for information about the Campaign’s lobbying, events, media coverage and publications. Further links to media articles about the Campaign can be seen on the News section of the Campaign’s website.

On the discussion site it is said that the Campaign has an entirely promotional purpose. In the sense that it promotes and campaigns for the social sciences in the UK, this is true and is the main purpose of the Campaign. But many other Wikipedia pages feature organisations with a promotional/campaigning function as their main objective, so this does not seem to be a reason for deletion.

On the discussion site it is said that the page itself is entirely promotional. Everything on the page is correct and it is open to all to edit this with more information.

The page has evidence of the Campaign’s activity - it has: given its views to a House of Commons Committee; organised 19 roadshows; run a conference on riots in England; launched the latest in its series of booklets on social science research (in November 2013, with speakers including Professor Lord Richard Layard and the Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham); and released a report on graduate employment (in October 2013). These are valid campaigning activities. (The Business Secretary Vince Cable and the Higher Education Minister David Willetts have also spoken at Campaign events which are not mentioned on the Wiki page).

The Campaign is supported by 78 universities, learned societies and publishers, and it was set up by the Academy of Social Sciences, the representative body for social science organisations in the UK. The Campaign’s Board is headed by Professor James Wilsdon, Professor of Science and Democracy, University of Sussex, whose deputy is Professor Michael Harloe, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Salford.

We suggest the page does not contravene the Wikipedia guidelines such that it needs to be deleted. Should there be any part of it that does not meet the guidelines, we suggest that this part be removed rather than the whole page, a procedure recommended under the guidelines. We would be happy to provide more information, links and testimonials should you wish this. Apologies for such a lengthy reply. Camsocsci (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an organization with that number of professors on its board (UK usage of professor) is likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Achilleos[edit]

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

A sci-fi illustrator who has had some success but by no means enough notice to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Largely unverifiable too. Sionk (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the guy who produced the cover art for about thirty (out of 150+) Target novelisations of Doctor Who, including the earliest twelve of these (published 1973-75). Don't know what you mean by "unverifiable" - his signature (usually as "-ACHILLEOS-") appears in the artwork, sometimes disguised as part of the design; but you can see it in e.g. File:Doctor Who and the Dæmons.jpg (published 1974), in the white area bottom centre, curving round the orange area to the right of the green cloud. Later he adopted a simple letter A in a circle, as seen in the lower left corner of File:Doctor Who and the Ark in Space.jpg (published 1977). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrators illustrate things as part of their job. That's not proof of notability in itself. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. He's often referred to by other professionals in the field and is very well known in the field of fantasy and to a lesser extent, science fiction art. For an artist in this line of work, he is also well published, with a number of collections over the years. The challenge for me is the lack of secondary sources in the article as it stands, and it might need a bit of digging in the specialist press to provide those sorts of references. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (for now). The lack of secondary sources is disappointing, especially considering that this credits the subject as a "world-renowned illustrator" whose career has "spanned over three decades", and praises his work as "spectacular". Such claims lead me to doubt that the subject is hopelessly non-notable. It's clear, however, that the article in its current state requires a great deal of work. Super Mario Man 22:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Family Guy characters. Ged UK 13:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny Griffin[edit]

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

We don't really know a whole lot about the character of Vinny Griffin (or is it Vinnie?) at this point in time, except that he's going to be a recurring character for at least the next few episodes. I suggest we delete the page and redirect to List of Family Guy characters at least until his character becomes more developed, or if having a separate page for him is even necessary. Even Joe Swanson and Carter Pewterschmidt don't have separate pages. Jgera5 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems a bit premature. He's appeared in one episode. I'm not sure he passes the WP:NOTABILITY test yet. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Right now, Vinny is the replacement pet on the show. He currently occupies a central role left vacant by a recently deceased character on the show. Therefore, his character should have a page. Silver Buizel (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward Delete : not a significant character (yet?). Definitely does not have much notability other than being new to the show. Support a redirect until such time as he becomes notable enough to warrant his own article. DP76764 (Talk) 21:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or redirect to Family Guy's main article. I don't think Vinny needs a separate article. TJD2 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons outlined above, really. Until Vinny has been in more than a few episodes and proves to be a significant character, he should just have a bio on the List of Family Guy characters page, especially since there are indications that his character may not be a permanent fixture on the show. NotGaryStu (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Wait until more about Vinny is known, then write an article for him. He should only have an article if he is a prominent character like the rest of the Griffin family, Cleveland, or Quagmire. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The creators of the show have indicated that Brian is gone and Vinnie is the replacement; while it is possible that this is a publicity stunt, ostensibly there is no greater authority on the character than the writers. Saying that we should "wait and see" is like suggesting that - upon the release of say, American dad - we waited to see what happened to Roger before we made an article. There's always uncertainty, but in cases like this we should trust word of God (we can always move it later). Liempt (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Merge I never even thought about a redirect. Good idea. As far him replacing a central character on the show -- yes he has. But that doesn't make the new character a central character. How do we know how he's going to feature in future episodes? What if he's killed off next Sunday? The point is, he has not yet met the criteria for notability. By this logic, then Chris' Evil Monkey should have his own page since an entire episode was written with him as the central character. I'm not against Vinny getting a page in the future, but let him "earn" it, for lack of a better cliche. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Family Guy characters. It is much too soon to provide this subject with its own article, but it also makes little sense to delete the article since the character exists and is slated to play a part in the Family Guy series. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vinny regardless of the length he will be on Family Guy should have his own page. He is the resulting controversy of Brian's death. --Matt723star (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change Or it could be changed to an article just about Brian's death. His death is causing significant coverage as it's one of the first shocking deaths of its era. --Matt723star (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to character list There's no inherent notability for "pet in family guy", so even if he's replacing the old dog this is still subject to our usual standards for notability of fictional characters.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to character list Vinny, and his voice actor, are listed as guest stars, so until there's indication this is a permanent character, a separate article is unnecessary. GSK ✉ ✓ 17:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / Merge: ~~I don't support the merging or changing at all (in which it should be removed from the characters article also).~~ Like Kjscotte34 said, the character has only been in one episode, in which we don't know if the character will be in the show permanently, or longer to be exacted. So right now, the character is not that important (likable) to rumors, fan base, nor the show that can lead up to create an article about it. I would recommend redirecting it to the episode where was first introduced, or to merge the info of the character to the characters article under the section recurring characters, because of right now, creating an article about the character is just too fast, especially when fans of Family Guy are telling producers, especially Seth to get rid of Vinny (or whatever it's name is), and to bring back Brian, in which I fully support that. Blurred Lines 19:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not notable and fails WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Vinny is a major character in the series now, even though he only appeared in half an episode. Joe needs a page too! Just 'cause he appeared in 1 episode doesn't mean he isn't a main character already! 76.220.66.126 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No prejudice to later re-creation, but we don't know if this character will appear beyond a set amount of episodes. For now, they've barely appeared in part of an episode in a long series. We're under no WP:DEADLINE and we can wait for more sources to develop. Nate • (chatter) 04:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe definitely needs an article of his own, but it is too soon to have one for Vinny. As I mentioned above, we should wait until more is known about him before making him an article. One episode appearance by itself does not make a character notable enough to have an article. Until then, it should be redirected to the List of Family Guy characters page. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Family Guy Characters with absolutely no prejudice of recreating the page later (say, at the end of the season) depending on Vinny's role in the show. While I expect he will replace Brian as a main character in the series, Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. Frank Anchor^Talk 21:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but a one time appearance (as of now) doesn't warrant a full article. Copy the current text to List of Family Guy Characters. If, at a later time, it is shown this is anything other than a few guest appearances (after all, Tony Sirico isn't an easy get) it can be restored. --Boston Burkenation (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the moment, Vinny has only appeared in one episode and his voice actor (Tony Sirico) has only signed with the show, for six episodes. Until Vinny has appeared in over ten episodes, or until the producers make a clear confirmation regarding his future on the show, this article should be deleted. For instance, Adam West and Jillian (Family Guy characters) have appeared in more episodes and are definitely recurring, should they get their own pages?? Even Joe Swanson doesn't have his own page!! Vinny, at this moment in time, is only a recurring, support character. It hasn't been confirmed that he is a permanent replacement to Brian! Reduolf13 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am leaning towards delete/redirect for Vinny Griffin Reduolf13, Mayor West does have his own page, as does Herbert. That's not to say that should be a precedent, but Mayor West does have his own page. Jgera5 (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the List of Family Guy Characters, however trim all the unsourced content currently in the article, and the content related to the Brian controversy, that can be found in the Brian Griffin article. At this point we have no idea how significant this character will be. The mentioned ones that do have articles, they are much more significant and have been covered significantly in reliable sources. STATic message me! 22:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, per Notability. Compact current text and redirect to List of Family Guy Characters. Can restore at later time per what the show does with the character. AlaskaDave (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears that Vinny is a new member of the Griffin family, replacing Brian. Therefore it is expected that he will have a starring role, particularly I expect in upcoming episodes to reveal more about his life and to normalise the new role. To delete the article and then to bring it back later would be foolish in my opinion. DaveMReilly talk 14:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If or when that happens, we can discuss it then. No point creating pages based solely on peoples expectations or guesses at this point. AlaskaDave (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per StaticVapor. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photon soup[edit]

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

An apparently non-notable computing project that I lack the technical knowledge to describe.

I could not find any significant coverage of this project. The only sources that are not Wikipedia mirrors are (as far as I can tell):[40] (a Slashdot post), [41] (an entry (?) at distributedcomputing.info, citing the previous post and the project's homepage) and the project's homepage, http://www.cpjava.net/photonproj.html (now a dead link, archived at the Wayback Machine). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if possible, no specific claims of notability, way to short, lack of sources, especially lack of coverage... Alex^{discussion ★} 00:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Photon tracing appears to be directly related to this article (and includes the approximate contents of the Photon soup article in one of its paragraphs). I'd suggest it as a redirect target although I note it appears to suffer from identical problems to this one. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean—a definite merge, if kept, I'd say. Though perhaps I should bundle Photon tracing into this AfD? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've proposed that additional article as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon tracing. Alex^{discussion ★} 02:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might have been a legitimate project, but effectively not notable after the article created in 2004. W Nowicki (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent sourcing to establish notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 13:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ChessX[edit]

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

ChessX does not appear to be a notable game by any means of veriability standards. While the program's neat, I haven't been able to find any books or independent print and web articles about this game, just self-published blogs and forums about it, and the only source listed in the Wikipedia article currently is the primary main official web page for the game. 和DITOR E tails 18:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it doesn't seem to establish its notability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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