Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 November	1 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free-to-win[edit]

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

Press release masquerading as an encyclopedia article. POV neologism of Free-to-play created as a Wargaming.net marketing exercise. Article mostly sourced to primary sources, any reliably sourced content can easily be integrated into free-to-play. User:Dzimitry, author of the page has exclusively edited Wargaming.net articles. - hahnch e n 00:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - terrible sourcing, none of which count as both third party and reliable. So, it fails the WP:GNG. It's not a real term, just a marketing buzzword. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional fluff full of buzzwords, regurgitated press releases, and unreliable sources. I don't think there's anything worth trying to merge into free to play. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it seems to only pertain to a single game, there's no notability to it as a neologism. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pretty much WP:PROMO of World of Tanks at this point (even if not intended?). Before WP:GNG even becomes relevant, this is just bunch of buzz word passing mentions strung together to sound like a free-to-play variation. Nothing to merge there either as this basically talks about 1 game and none of the sources are about the term/topic. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say there are many more free-to-play games that don't give paid users advantages, such as League of Legends. It really holds little significance, and is not a new genre or business model, just a buzzword. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a small section about this on the Free to play article, should that be removed as well.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvageable content, if any, to Free-to-play, and then redirect or delete. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What salvageable content do you believe exists for merging? -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence the "if any". I'll leave it to the majority to decide, I don't have an opinion on what should be retained. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a marketing gimmick rather than a concept that has gained significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Brynjolfsson[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF and does not seem notable. Page is essentially serving as a coatrack for fringe ideas (and maybe even a soapbox for such). jps (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak whatever. GS h-index of 10 for mainstream work on food irradiation. DSc from the Niels Bohrs Institute. Some low-cited arXiv papers on fringe topic of plasma cosmology. Not sure. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, Ari was Director for the radiation facilities of the U.S. Army and Danish Government, as well as the Director for the IAEA. His contributions are not numerous but as the director elevated to the highest position of government authority, his contributions represented decisive arbitration. Notable status is beyond dispute on these grounds alone. Orrerysky (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source stating that Brynjolfsson was the Director of the IAEA, please cite it. The article states that he was director of "International Facility for Food Irradiation Technology" at the IAEA - not the same thing at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to see RS for that claim, and many others in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article quite correctly states Ary's appointments; of course, he was never 'director of IAEA'. He was director of IFFIT (International Facility for Food Irradiation Training at Wageningen, Netherlands) which was an institution of IAEA. He was never director of US radiation facilities, but at the US Army Natick Facilities he was head of the food irradiation programme (I do not remember his title at this position). SCOPUS lists 8 publications, 6 of them are about food irradiation. His merrits are about promoting fi through international activities. I join the motion to Keep this article. Dieter E (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A colleague has just given me the correct position: He became head of Radiation Facilities at the Danish Atomic Energy Commission's Research Facility at Risø; now correct in article. Dieter E (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expected to be regretfully saying delete this, but I found a heavy book ref, and his positions as documented in the online CV were indeed high ones. I see several other refs have now been added, including Icelandic newspaper coverage. It should be noted when searching for more of those that the native spelling of his patronymic is Brynjólfsson. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "A Brynjólfsson" in GS doen't improve the cites. Note that there are other "Brynjólfsson"s with vast numbers of cites but these are different people. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It will help greatly when searching for Icelandic newspaper coverage, however, and that's what I was referring to. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:GNG gives the criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The cited references in this article include (1) a national newspaper front page headline and article with photograph, (2) a double page spread article about him in a national newspaper which refers to his work on the irradiation of food by describing him as "...talinn i hópi fremstu visindamanna i heiminum á sinu sviði." ("...considered one of the leading scientists in the world in their field."), and (3) an obituary in the Boston Globe. I consider that these satisfy WP:GNG. Hebrides (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet notability guidelines. However, per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, it is important that this article does not become a coatrack for the promotion of Brynjolfsson's Plasma-Redshift Cosmology theories. Any coverage of this needs to be in proportion to coverage elsewhere in mainstream reliable sources - which is to say, minimal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma-Redshift Cosmology[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. This subject is essentially 100% in violation of WP:FRINGE#Independent sources and original research prohibitions. There are no reliable sources which even acknowledge "Plasma-Redshift Cosmology" let alone treat it seriously. jps (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sources for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Even if there were reliable sources on this topic, the (unreliable, existing) sources don't seem to agree on the mechanism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evidence of evading the spirit of WP:NPOV]. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under development and several criticisms are mistaken or red-herring. Critics may represent WP:Systemic Bias Orrerysky (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider userfication if there were any chance of there being something there. I don't see anything there now, but if someone can find something.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and FRINGE. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's under development. Johnnyc (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have repeatedly asked the creator of the article which of the sources cited therein establish notability, i.e. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but have had no answer - accordingly, I have to assume that there aren't any. Certainly there seems to be little evidence of coverage of the subject beyond Brynjolfsson's primary-source material, and the odd passing mention in coverage of fringe cosmology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have found evidence that Orrerysky is clearly ignoring WP:GF and is working to promote his views/opinions WP:V against Wikipedia policies. I.e As exampled in my response to Talk:Plasma-Redshift_Cosmology "Unrelated Statements 2". The many assertions against this whole article are clearly unsupported, even when Orrerysky has the adequate opportunity to add relevant references. AndyTheGrump support for deletion of this article are verifiable. WP:Systemic Bias claimed by Orrerysky to "Critics" above, also applies to directly him. Avoiding WP:GF is enough evidence to delete this entire page. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: off-wiki canvassing is happening here. Woodroar (talk) 16:06, 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 speedy delete. Author requests deletion: speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachit Kapoor[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer who fails WP:CRIN by having not played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket. By extension fails WP:ATH. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riq index[edit]

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

Non-notable index. Article has one reference, in which this index was proposed. According to Google Scholar, this article has been cited exactly once. Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tori index and discussion of both of these articles at Talk:h-index. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a valuable piece of information about one of the few indices, if any, designed to account for the bias of the self-citations. The fact that NASA ADS has implemented it is a clear manifestation of its relevance. And also a blog by the American Physical Society is enough. 40BOG40 (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 40BOG40. On the Internet I found researchers posting their tori and riq in their online curriculum. I have also to say that in Wikipedia I have seen a host of other indices which does not deal with self-citations. Keeping it would be a good sign to the community that one take seriously the impact of autociting. Thus, Keep. Danguard00 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is absolutely not the only index that corrects for self-citations: the Web of Science presents citation rates (including the h-index) both corrected and uncorrected for self-citations. Not that this matters much: what we find important or not really is not of importance here. That the index itself has been cited just once in the scientific literature says more about the fact that this has not (yet?) found any acceptance in the community. --Randykitty (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to keep it. The indices by Web of Science are not freely available and have not been implemented by NASA ADS. For me, the fact that there is only one citation to the article is not significant. There are other means to make an idea of the diffusion and influence of an idea, etc. For example, also the number of readers, downloads, etc. as those provided by NASA ADS and PLOSone itself. And, to me, the goal of tori and riq is of the highest relevance. I suggest the qualified contributors of Wikipedia to systematically add tori and riq to the articles of scientists, when available. Referee23 (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, like the other comments above, this is not a policy-based argument (see WP:ILIKEIT). I am quite certain that WP will not start including numbers of downloads and all kinds of other indexes. At this point, the only widely-accepted measures are the impact factor, number of citations for a paper, and the h-index. (BTW, unless a researcher publishes lots of papers and cites all of his previously-published ones in all of them, these figures are hard to game by self-citations). The tori and riq indexes will most certainly not be added to any biographies until they are more widely accepted in the field than the ones I just mentioned (and even mentioning someone's h-index is not uncontroversial here). That NASA ADS has implemented them is nice, but that database covers just a very small part of academia and leaves out many other fields (life sciences, social sciences, humanities, etc.). In short, up till now not a single one of the "keep" !votes is policy based, so unless you come up with a better argument, they will likely be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 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) 18:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main claim to notability for this bibliometric is usage by the major databaseAstrophysics Data System. This database is undoubtedly a reliable secondary source, but at present, it is the only one. I've been unable to find a second source; an APS blog doesn't count as reliable for me. This may fall under WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for notability to develop. This doesn't preclude the development of a bibliometrics section in the Astrophysics Data System article to discuss this and other metrics used at ADS. No prejudice to recreation when multiple in depth reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or merge and redirect to some appropriate article. For me, an important question in deletion discussions is "are people likely to search on Wikipedia for information about this topic, and is it the sort of information they would expect Wikipedia to have?" In the area of citation indexes, I would think the answers are "yes" and "yes." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would make sense if anybody had ever heard about this index. With one highly-specialized database that has implemented it and 1 citation in the scientific literature, it would seem to me that the answer is clearly "no". New indexes are proposed regularly. Most disappear into the mists of time. --Randykitty (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - normally I don't like relisting more than once, but in this case three "keep" votes were confirmed by CU to have been posted by socks of the same blocked user, so I've <s></s>'d those comments. Consensus seems to favor deletion at the moment, but it doesn't hurt to continue the discussion unimpeded by socking. – Juliancolton | ^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 speedy delete. G11 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Koshinski[edit]

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

Obvious autobiography of non-notable broadcaster, consisting of unsourced puffery and blatant advertising; article is unsalvageable in this form, and was created and largely is the product of edits by SPAs related to the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous personal promotion. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahkota Medical Centre[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. private hospitals are not inherently notable. Only coverage I could find is for some minor events being held there. LibStar (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, in general and per WP:ORG. -- Scray (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:25, 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.

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ra[edit]

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

Delete does not meet notability guidelines, claims notability however a news search shows [[1]] which has many Frank Ra's but not this one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Sources found. Will consider change to Keep if more found.

review (Korean-language), The Chosun Ilbo, January 23, 2011
"Searching for happiness? Italian-born Frank Ra can help", Canadian Immigrant, January 10, 2012
"An invitation to living joyfully", China Post, December 19, 2011

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment User:Hell in a Bucket said "a news search shows which has many Frank Ra's but not this one". Incorrect. If you see [2] those are not Frank Ra, but Frank RaMON etc.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Frank+Ra#q=%22Frank+Ra%22 returns 5 pages with relevant results. References in the media include:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/art/books/2011/12/19/326292/An-invitation.htm
http://www.banyen.com/events/20110505ra.htm
http://tinybuddha.com/blog/where-we-place-our-attention/
http://www.enotalone.com/relationships/26230.html
http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/article/39033/amare-happiness-coach-advice-erasmus-expat.html
http://www.namastepublishing.com/miracles
http://www.meaning.ca/archives/archive/art_what-makes-good-life-F_Ra.html
http://www.youngatheartnews.com/online.html
http://iahrw.com/index.php/conference/keynotes
http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/01/23/2011012301220.html
http://canadianimmigrant.ca/immigrant-stories/searching-for-happiness-italian-born-frank-ra-can-help/

Plus see Wikipedia own notability queries...

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Frank+Ra%22
https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Frank+Ra%22&num=50

There are dozens of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.157.137 (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources added by 154.20.157.137 above are unreliable, other than the three I identified. Since no one has found additional reliable sources, I have no option but vote Delete at this time. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:32, 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, L Faraone 18:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many references online. Each reference to Frank Ra points to the person described in the article. Unsure why this entry was flagged in the first place. References include established, offline media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.158.49 (talk) 15:05, 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. With no prejudice no any future merge disscussion. KTC (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harlequin Shopping Centre[edit]

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

relatively small undistinguished shopping center; no real 3rd party citation for anything notable DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is hardly a "small" or "undistinguished" shopping centre. Your spelling indicates your being an editor based in the US. Are you qualified to propose this? The Harlequin is one of the largest shopping malls in the South-East and contains major stores such as John Lewis and Marks & Spencer. It turned the economy of Watford from decline to prosperity. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Gareth, Considering you're from/in the US I fail to see how you can say a small undistinguished shopping center without even visiting the centre?, I'd say it's very big considering it has shops like Apple, Marks & Spencer, Zara etc!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Watford - Firstly the nominator's location and spelling of centre has very little to do with whether this article should be deleted or not. I think that there is possibly enough content to keep the article, but at the least the content can be merged into Watford. Some extra sources alongside the large coverage in the Watford Observer: [3] [4] [5]. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Watford#Economy possibly converting it to a new section on the Town Centre. The newly rebranded Hartlequin or Intu Watford appears merely to be one element of the town's retail centre. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 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. Mike V • Talk 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Chess Notation[edit]

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

Notability concerns, unsourced. It's own webpage says it is still in beta. Note when looking for sources that this is not the same as the much better known Portable Game Notation. Spinning Spark 18:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of the format actually being used, nor any source beyond the developer's website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is an associated article Forsyth–Edwards Expanded Notation which I have also nominated for deletion. Spinning Spark 11:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use seems to be very limited. The only references are to the creator's website and the article seems to have been written by the creator. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Hard to find any information at all about it, even (other than the information that's here). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 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 Speedy keep Nomination withdrawn, sources have been added (non-admin closure) 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 21:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Heroic Ones[edit]

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

Unsourced, possibly non-notable 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 18:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have a feeling that there will be a lot of sources in another language, as well as sources that haven't hit the internet just yet, as evidenced by this book. I did, however, find where the film screened at the 2004 MIFF- which does make it pass notability guidelines per WP:NFILM. I'm still digging somewhat, but this is enough to pass notability guidelines so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hong Kong (Mandarin title) (literal title):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Keep per ongoing improvements and per having world-wide distribution and multiple airings in multiple languages and under multiple title. We are really supposed to LOOK before nominating, and simply lacking use of sources does not "automatically" make a topic "possibly non-notable". Tokyogirl79's "feelings" are usually bankable, and sending a brand new article to AFD after one's earlier deletion prod was denied and while it is being actively being actively improved is not the best way to improve this encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:37, 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 redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Killington[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character lacking any independent reliable sources that offer significant out-of-universe coverage. Nominated and kept once previously on some arguments that at best can be described as faulty. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters or delete. Not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete unless substantial sources can be provided. TTN (talk) 16:10, 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 Speedy delete by User:Jimfbleak under WP:A7, No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): no independent sources. I've salted the page to prevent further recreation. I'll drop a further note on the article creator's page as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Varghese[edit]

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

Article on living person (also autobiography) that does not give any claim to notability, and does not cite any source except some address list. The article was already seeded, but recreated by the author/subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salt - already speedy deleted twice within the space of about an hour, indicating that it will be re-created unless blocked. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:00, 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. KTC (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MeetingZone[edit]

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

Unremarkable company. promotional article, managing to list their services, all of which are perfectly routines, at least twice in bold face. The refs are trivial or PR, or both.

Appearing in a list of "fastest growing" normally means not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Muhammad Fazal Azim Taha[edit]

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

This is a biography of living person, but the only source cited is his personal Facebook profile, which is by definition not reliable, nor independent. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 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 & redirect to Avatar (2009 film)#Sequels. -- KTC (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar 2 (2015 Film)[edit]

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

The policy WP:NFF says that a film should not have separate article if it have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography. There are no sources in this article to prove the principal photography was commenced. Moreover, the article is not about the title movie, bu about 2009 movie Avatar. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may always be exceptions to WP:NFF (See its paragraph #3) but yes, this one is tad too Soon. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. - Mr X 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDB is not a reliable source, and the second link is to a fake Youtube trailer. According to Google news, it isn't even set to start shooting until 2014 and all the buzz appears to be baseless speculation. - Sweet Nightmares 17:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as often-recreated (at various names) by sock of same user involved in previous creations. DMacks (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Avatar 2 is in fact planned to be released in 2015, so I change my vote from a Snow delete to a redirect because the current title of the article is something many people are likely to search. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as sourcable search term to Avatar (2009 film)#Sequels. Though information on its plans IS receiving coverage,[6] we have no hard title yet for this unmade film. It is for the time being well enough covered in the target, and even with the wealth of sources discussing James Cameron's plans for the sequel(s), production is not even to begin until NEXT October. Way TOO SOON and fails WP:NFF. I expect no issue with undeletion or recreation once we get a lot closer and have far more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Schmidt, or we'll be deleting it until there's enough for an article. htom (talk) 17:54, 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 keep. Notability established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emmsjé Gauti[edit]

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

Oddly declined A7. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate having any notability. STATic message me! 16:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for those who speak Icelandic, http://www.dv.is/lifsstill/2013/7/29/emmsje-gauti-og-david-fara-yfir-strikid/ might be worth checking out. Someone who is familiar with navigating the Icelandic charts might also want to check whether or not the artist charted; I have no idea what http://www.tonlist.is/Music/Artist/463684/emmsje_gauti/ is trying to tell me for example (or if this is even a chart site). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems to be mostly an issue about finding third party sources, he has an article on Icelandic wikipedia which tells me this is not just a fan page or similar.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is him having an article on his home language's encyclopedia (which has a very less strict notability requirements), any rationale for keeping the article? Or better yet any reasoning for him passing WP:MUSICBIO? STATic message me! 16:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created the article basically after seeing one of his hits charting in one of the local charts (not official mind you, but an indication of notability. Incidentally Iceland does not have an official chart to depend upon like Finland's Suomen virallinen lista, so it's more difficult to prove charting history)... Applying international criterion for notability for local artists would not be fair. In any case, a page in local language Wikipedia, in this case, Icelandic, is an indication of fair notability. There are quite a few Icelandic references. In a small search, I found out for example: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. The problem with local artists is lack of English language sites.An English language local site though has very interesting report: Icelandic Airwaves says: Emmsjé "Gauti is one of the major league hip hop artists of Iceland... He’s released two albums with his previous bands, Skábræður and 32c, but in 2010 he went solo and that’s when the ball really started rolling... If you’re in to hip hop or booty-shaking music in general, Emmsjé Gauti is an artist you can’t afford to miss!". He is famous enough to be included in a 2014 film Land Ho! as per IMDb. Clearly there are many references indicating some notability. I will try to get translations of Icelandic sites and incorporate them in the article. werldwayd (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these! Could you shed some light on some of the sources? Are they independent and do they have editorial control, or is this a likely press release? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used a translation machine and made additional checkings. Clearly these sources are not what you call majour media. But they are independently written pieces and not some press release. The first article is an interview with the rapper but more like reporting rather than straight question and answer. Most others are on occasions of a forthcoming single like "Kinky" or a forthcoming concert with other bands, or appearance in a reality television context etc. Foreign acts are very hard to cover, that's why we see most try to created US or British or big country artists (France, Germany etc). Rarely do you find editors spending time on these artists that may be majour in their countries but that they have at best sketchy media coverage in English. Rappers like Emmsjé Gauti, are more like in a cult genre that will interest even a smaller population in already a small market... For example I had to create category for Icelandic rappers, none was connected, but even with my first attempt, hurdles appear to delete this "first-ever rapper article" in English Wikipedia. In any case, I will incorporate those references that I have mentioned in hope of salvaging this article. I will carefully browse the translations at times so inaccurate and gibberish that one has to guess some sentences. I have also watched many of the music videos of this artist as he seems to be very active in coollaborations with others and does spend time and effort on professional music videos for his releases. werldwayd (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Tonlist is not an official national chart for Iceland, it is an indication of notable sales in the country. This week's Tonlist chart has Emmsjé Gauti at number 19 of the albums chart with album Þeyr. Please see http://www.tonlist.is/Music/Chartlist/271 werldwayd (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems enough for me to call it a keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG per sources from werldwayd and WP:NONENG. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability yet. This close is without prejudice to the article being re-created at a later time, if/when the subject becomes notable enough for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Path to Liberation[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a low-budget film. Fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 16:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC) This film is not low budget on the region it was filmed in. Further, Pedapati Venkata Ramana Murthy is a legendary acting coach of Visakapatnam who is acting in a film for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:4580:2B5:E1AC:238:B71C:2386 (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now as being TOO SOON and lacking coverage under WP:NFF (paragraph 3) to merit being a possible exception to guideline. Film appears to be completed and in now in post production. IF it gets the requisite coverage after release, this can be un-deleted and fixed or recreated. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the director is refusing to be interviewed, this film production was very well covered in local media in Visakapatnam. Please wait until Dec 21 when a media presentation is promised for the next coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.109.70 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Lack of coverage fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFF. If the IP editors want to recreate it later, when the actual film is released, that would be appropriate. As it is, the production has generated exactly one article in a reliable source, and even most of the cast on the imdb page is listed as "rumored". There is simply no way of telling at this time whether this film will be released next month or get stuck in development hell. Considering the closeness of the release date combined with the lack of coverage, there is certainly a non-zero chance of the latter. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maggia (comics)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". The article explains the relationship of the Maggia to the real-world Mafia and this well-known euphemism is detailed in sources such as The Supervillain Book: the evil side of comics and Hollywood. Warden (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a speculative, joking forum post by someone who doesn't even appear to be related to the creation of the topic. I don't even think that is valid for inclusion in the first place. I doubt there is significant coverage in that book, so it is probably useless in providing consent for the article or establishing notability. TTN (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you read the article because you just put up your standard cookie-cutter nomination. These nominations seem increasingly to be bad-faith and contrary to our deletion policy which requires due diligence so that our time not be wasted. The nominator has been sanctioned before for such disruptive behaviour. Warden (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction- WP:BEFORE is not part of deletion policy, or any other policy for that matter. Colonel Warden knows this, and his continued misrepresentation of the discredited WP:BEFORE as mandatory policy is deliberately dishonest. Reyk _YO! 00:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly expected to read an article before you nominate it for deletion. We can see that this is policy because failure to do so is a reason to speedy keep. Moreover this policy has teeth because TTN was previously sanctioned by arbcom for engaging in such disruptive behaviour. The account has been quiescent for several years but now engages in the same pattern of cookie-cutter activity, without regard to the actual content. Warden (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. Not independently notable. The two or three sourced statements can be merged into that article. The rest of the article is just in-universe plot details more suited to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable more than 150 comic books, Maggia appears also in television shows and video games. I agree the article needs improvement but reviews and interviews are available to help with "additional citations for verification" and I agree with Warden. --Crazy runner (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. Like the other keeps, the Maggia is a popular organized crime group that has more than 150 appearances. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:20, December 2 2013 (UTC)

The duration or quantity of its appearances don't really help anything unless there are sourced development and reception details on it. TTN (talk) 03:49, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Spectre[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements by Crazy runner, or merge to both List of Marvel Comics characters: B and List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics as appropriate. BOZ (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: B and List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. Sounds good to me. I don't see any evidence of notability here, and searches turn up nothing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources available in The encyclopedia of super villains, The Comics Journal and at Comic Book Resources. --Crazy runner (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference from being mentioned in something and being covered in something. Unless those provide real world information, there is nothing that can be added to the article, and it cannot be considered significant coverage. TTN (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. You should have read my edits (the sources and the external link) before writing your comment. The sources from Comic Book Resources contains the WP:WAF#Secondary information and the external link to The Comic Book Database demonstrates that future improvement of the article is possible because the last appearances of the Black Spectre organization had not been taken into account. --Crazy runner (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of the time of my comment, all you had done was source primary information. As of now, it looks more like you're writing a section for Moon Knight than for this character. It could be merged over with only a couple tweaks to the first couple sentences, so I think there is a weight issue with that. The source for the organization is just a teaser for that series of comics, so I'm not seeing much potential there. If this is kept, the organization should probably be removed and moved over to Features of the Marvel Universe. TTN (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of your comment, you could have look at the sources and see if there is an interest. Now I have the impression that you are not even looking the sources before merging articles, proposing deletions or commenting one. About the analysis section, it is your opinion but with this kind of thoughts, I think that only superheroes will have analysis section. And I do not see the interest to split the article, there is no confusion possible. Many articles on Marvel Comics present different meanings for the same name. If you have pages with characters of the same name, have you got also the intention to suppress the minor characters ? If it is the case, you should ask contributors' opinions on the different projects. I will follow Wikipedia:Splitting, the article is neither too big nor too small. No confusion possible between the two meanings of Black Spectre in Marvel Comics. The sections have nearly the same size. In my opinion, the supporting material is present. --Crazy runner (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had said something like "adding sources, will expand later", it might have been worth taking a look, but just tacking them onto to primary material made it seem unlikely that they were of any note. The main thing about that section is that 70% of it is talking about the impact on Moon Knight, the development of that character, and overall reception to that issue. It's fine material, but too weighted towards that. If "the character is depicted as the antithesis of Moon Knight" can be expanded into a paragraph, and the death of the character more weighted towards the actual character, it would be a fine indicator of notability. Assuming that the character does establish notability, keeping the unrelated organization is sort of weird from an organizational standpoint. Keeping content that would otherwise be removed just because a topic of the same name is notable doesn't make much sense. TTN (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in dictionnaries and encyclopedias, you could find very different definitions under the same name. Sorry, to read that some wikipedia pages do not make much sense for you. This article covers the meanings of Black Spectre inside the Mavel Comics. --Crazy runner (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - This particular subject will never have enough meat to be a GA or FA, but it's more than just a stub, and does feature some non-fictional content. I think it's quality enough to remain by itself, but if at the very worst it should be merged to List of Marvel Comics Charaters: B, not outright deleted. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing in this manner as no technical notability has been established during this discussion, but on the other hand there has been no clear consensus made to delete the article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Corleone[edit]

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

This character does not meet the notability guidelines for fictional characters. The article's content is mostly a rehash of the film plot, but no secondary sources showing that the character is notable independent of the film. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons given above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Corleone family. I looked at these a few weeks back when I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollonia Vitelli-Corleone. But I didn't have the heart to delete the others because the Corleone family are central in multiple books and movies. On the other hand, the nom is correct there is lack of secondary sourcing. And the Godfather Wikia does it better so nothing is lost for fans. I thought about a project to merge the dozens of Godfather character articles into a List of Godfather characters, but that is very difficult due to length and integration problems, and which to merge and which to leave separate. So if the decision has to be made right now recommend a redirect, and perhaps an external link to Wikia (from the Corleone family article) using Template:Wikia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The nomination seems quite absurd because these characters covered in great detail in numerous works. For example, checking out Kay Adams, I was immediately able to find a source which discussed the casting of this part in detail. The nomination seems to be just addressing the current state of the articles without following our editing or deletion policies. Warden (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have given one example of a source for one of the articles I have nominated. Nothing that you have said gives any indication that all of these articles can be salvaged. Kay Adams is the only one I considered somewhat borderline. The others are not notable beyond the films. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems adequate to demonstrate that your bundle is poorly chosen and that you have not observed WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Corleone family. They are not notable. One source found for one article doesn't convince me otherwise. Deletion is also acceptable as a fallback. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I am reasonably sure that a properly conducted search could find enough material on most of them, but I unfortunately cannot do everything & if I do it, will not get to it during this discussion. I continue to regret the foolishness of trying to downgrade our coverage of all important elements of important fiction; this is moving in the wrong direction entirely. It would be much more helpful to look for good content and references than to remove the articles for temporary lack of them. (I accept that we might choose to group them together, The content is more important than the arrangement, and grouping does reduce the need for duplication of background.) DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, when many topics are placed together in a group deletion, the AFD template only shows the search engine for the one "head" topic. Here are the others:

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

Time now to research for sources offering contextual analysis and commentary of these characters. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ALL five. I find myself in complete agreement with User:DGG on this one, and like him do not have the time to personally address issues in this instance. But for a notable fictional family whose members have been analyzed and dissected ad infinitum in numerous sources, it neeeding to be done is no reason to delete improvable topics. See below:

Keep Mary Corleone and encourage article be improved through available sources.[12][13]
Keep Mary Corleone and encourage article be improved through available sources.[14][15]
Keep Anthony Corleone and encourage article be improved through available sources.[16][17]
Keep Carmela Corleone and encourage article be improved through available sources.[18][19]
Keep Vincent Corleone and encourage article be improved through available sources.[20][21]
Keep Kay Adams-Corleone and encourage article be improved through available sources.[22][23]

Point here is that we can give this some time and discuss possible merges on the various talk pages. Deletion is the last resort for only that which is completely unsalvageable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MQS: Anything on Apollonia Vitelli-Corleone, previously deleted? I'll try to look also. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DGG, there's not enough in sources for me to determine reasonableness for a separate article for Apollonia Vitelli-Corleone.[24][25] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick look at the sources and mostly about the movie actors, not the characters. They are passing mentions of the characters. --Green Cardamom (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No source is required to be 100% about a fictional character, just so long as they are discussed in enough detail. If covered in relationship to other characters and the various films, we have enough to allow a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be solely dedicated to the character, but they do need to provide some sort of content for the article. The grand majority of these seem to mention the characters in context only to their role in the plot, so there isn't really much that can be done with them. The only thing I've seen so far is some casting issues for Mary, but that is already discussed in the film article. TTN (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah need information to write an encyclopedia article with per WP:WHYN, beyond database type facts of what actor played what character. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Corleone family and allow them to be split out as necessary pending actual real world information being added to them. Offering laundry lists of sources doesn't really help anything. Looking through a few of them, the grand majority seem like passing mentions. There is some stuff about Sofia Coppola's casting, but it already appears to covered in The Godfather Part III anyway. TTN (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Corleone family article is about the Mafia crime family and so would be quite inappropriate for the characters listed here, who were more conventional family members. Conflating the two would encourage improper synthesis and we have no sources provided to suggest that this is an appropriate treatment. Per WP:COMMONNAME, a character is best described using that character's name, not some synthetic construct fabricated as a form of faux deletion. Warden (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A redirect and then allowing a split-out seems redundant for what already exists... and such a loss of sourcable commentary and analysis does not expand a reader's knowledge of the subject (expanding knowledge, not limiting it, is why Wikipedia is here, after all). Second point: a merge would overwhelm the suggested target... which is essentially a description of some few family activities and a blue-linked list of family members. The Corleone family article lacks any decent commentary about those family members. Redirecting/deleting sourcable articles ON those family members (changing blue-links to red) does not expand a reader's knowledge on those topics. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If these can be sourced with development and reception information, they should be kept, but you seem to be basing this off of random searches without actually providing anything. These are all simply plot dumps, so nothing needs to be merged anyway. If Corleone family is the contention point, creating a list of characters is also suitable. TTN (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Catch 22. An editor not having time to fix a problem perceived by some as fixable, does not in and of itself lend credulity to statements of non-notability. Numerous book sources analyzing the various family members and their relationships allows me to reasonably presume it can be done, even if not immediately. WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE. WP:IMPERFECT. 03:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, as pointed out above, all you've given are general links to searches without actually showing anything. I certainly didn't go through all of them link-by-link, but the ones I did see don't have anything beyond the bit about people hating Coppola's daughter. If there are "numerous books", pointing out a few would help your case. TTN (talk) 03:45, 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. KTC (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Agrapides[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Technopat (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSPORTS. Fails WP:GNG as the gymnast hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She may have success in the future, but she is early in her career and the sources here are not enough to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May become notable but is not there yet.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:03, 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. KTC (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debasish Kundu[edit]

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

Not notable Rbreen (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment It might be worthwhile sifting through prior versions. There may be content and/or sourcing that would paint a clearer picture of the subject. Dloh cierekim 14:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources such as this one (p.36) or this are articles that the good doctor has written himself, in unreliable or closely affiliated sources. Then there is www.esciencecentral.org/journals/spagyric-medicine-purification-of-body-mind-and-spirit-2327-5162.1000141.pdf?aid=20111^{[predatory publisher]} this journal article] which discusses such novel concepts as "water geometry", Biological transmutation and my personal favorite, "Based on the principle of quantum physics, subtle energy information of spagyric essences influence and harmonize the elemental information levels of the consciousness, emotions, behavior, thoughts, connections, soul and spirit, from DNA to cells, it harmonize our energy fields." In my opinion, this is a clear example of a poorly-sourced, highly-promotional article about a non-notable practitioner of alternative medicine, and I'm being very kind. - Mr X 14:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another article at the intersection of WP:FRINGE, low notability, and promotion; making it impossible to write neutral content. bobrayner (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No support for notability. The sources given are frankly preposterous. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious notability failure. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: There's really nothing worth preserving here. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanispamcruftisement. comment The original title... Dr.Debasish Kundu the living legend of Alternative & Integrative Medicine and the shooped pix are hilarious! 46.64.184.43 (talk) 04:52, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Nichols[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting notability guidelines. — James Cantor (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article is currently of poor quality, she is cited in several independent news sources and passes WP:prof. - Sweet Nightmares 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the standards of WP:PROF and seems to be notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being quoted in news sources (which are not themselves about the BLP) does not typically count as "significant coverage" about the BLP. Moreover, it is not clear which WP:PROF criterion she might meet. The BLP subject is not a professor (she is a business person running a clinic),

There is no evidence of significant impact in her field (1),
No national/international awards (2),
She has not been elected to any high honour (3),
There is no evidence of any association with higher education (4),
She is not a professor, nevermind the holder of a named chair (5) or post such as dean or provost (6),
There is no evidence of substantial impact outside academia related her to field (7),
She has never been a journal editor (8),
She is not in any field of literature (9).

So, despite the claim that she meets WP:PROF, no one has presented any evidence for how.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A google scholar search show that the two most cited works by her have been cited 73 and 43 times, with other works cited in the 20s and teens. While I am no expert in Lesbian/bisexual women's psychotherapy, I'm willing to assume that it is not the most popular field to publish in. A citation rate of 73 and 43 might seem low for the hard sciences, but in her specific area of research it appears that she meets criteria 1. I would argue that she may also satisfy criteria 7, as all of her positions have been non-academic, and since her area of expertise is therapy, it seems that her academic capacity very much relates to the work that she does on the ground. While I think criteria 1 is more easily met, I do think that the two of these combined means that she does meet the criteria for notability for academics. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of citations is not given as a criterion in PROF, but I believe you are on exactly the right track. The number you appear at the beginning to calculate is what is called the h-index, which is indeed often taken a measure of impact (for better or for worse). However, Nichols' h-index is somewhere around that of an assistant professor, not at all equivalent to the level of accomplishment (dean, provost, international awards, etc.) indicated by the criteria.— James Cantor (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the h-index. I'm aware of it, and the calculators I have used in the past seem to be having some issues with processing her (similar name to other scholars that show up in the Google Scholar results) so I went off the top citation articles from her that I found. While you are right that the guidelines do not mention citations, the point of guidelines is that they are not robotic and leave room for human judgement. Her results seem to be on the high end of other articles on related subjest (which seem to median in the 30s) and as such, I feel that as a whole she has probably satisfied criteria 1. She also seems to have fulfilled criteria 7 of WP:PROF with her non-academic work. As others have pointed out, independent verifiable sources are readily available, and it appears to me that she also fulfills WP:GNG. You seem not to agree with this assessment, which is perfectly okay, but I believe that the guidelines have been met. Additionally, it is important to note that both WP:GNG and WP:BAND are guidelines, not policies. While they should be followed generally, through the process of AfD, editors may determine that an article is still notable, even if it does not necessarily fit 100% within the guidelines. While I feel that it does, it appears that a consensus here is emerging that the article is about a notable subject, so a constant appeal back to your interpretation of the guidelines might not be the best way of going about things. Again, I feel that these article do in fact meet the guidelines, but even if my judgement on this is wrong, the whole of the discussion here has convinced me that the subject is notable and should be included, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to happen in an AfD discussion, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the keep votes above. James Cantor should have informed Jokestress of this AfD, since she created the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A "vote" to keep should be based on editing guidelines, not based circularly on other people's votes, which themselves lack any evidence relevant to the editing guidelines. If I may pose the question directly (again): Which of the 9 PROF criteria (all listed above) is it that folks think Nichols meets, and what's the evidence that she does? — James Cantor (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vote however I like, thanks. It seems reasonable that someone mentioned in numerous reliable sources should be considered notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FKC is indeed free to believe that to be a reasonable standard. But it is not the standard in GNG, PROF, or any other relevant guideline currently on WP.— James Cantor (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sportfan5000 has convincingly addressed the CNG issue below. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Convincing" generally means that someone who didn't believe X came to believe X. Thus far, however, we have only people who already believed X still believing X (and still providing no evidence of the belief). That's not "convincing." That's advertising. The repeated inability of multiple editors to answer even the most basic request for even a single cite to support the claim is in itself rather troublesome.— James Cantor (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is "troublesome", but wouldn't it also be "troublesome" to you that apparently not one editor agrees with you that the article should be deleted? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is what it is, and the policies are what they are. If I were greatly outnumbered and had no policy or precedent to back my opinion, I would indeed be likely to be merely disrupting the page. However, one person with evidence counts much more than any number of people with none, and I have gone through each of the relevant criteria one by one showing how they apply. No one (until TonyBallioni) has even tried to follow policy or present any evidence no matter how many times asked. (That said, I have no illusions that many admins close AfDs just after a cursory look at the number of "votes" rather than any evaluation of the arguments and evidence.)— James Cantor (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I very much doubt that this article will be deleted if you are the only participant in the AfD to back deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to point out here since my reply to James Cantor was fairly long, and I think it relevant to this discussion: WP:GNG and WP:BAND are guidelines, not policies. While policies should always be followed, there can be exceptions to guidelines if the consensus at AfD supports it. While the consensus here seems to be that the guidelines have been satisfied, even if James Cantor is right and they have not, it seems that a consensus is evolving to determine that she should be included, and that is an acceptable result of an AfD even if it is not 100% in line with the guidelines. If you want a policy to back it up, WP:GUIDELINE says this, and you could even invoke WP:IAR, though I don't think it necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets the GNG, I easily found numerous sources when searching on her name and some of the institutions she help create or was a part of. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just being mentioned or quoted does not establish notability. As per GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail...Significant coverage is more than a passing mention. I've searched rather extensively (in both the academic literature and regular google search) and found no article directly about her. Which sources is it exactly that provides significant coverage?— James Cantor (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the GNG - ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I feel the many articles that do discuss her add up to meet GNG, so that original research is not needed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feeling. However, any good editor will also appreciate my request (how many times now?) to actually cite some of them?— James Cantor (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, citing my feelings then suggesting I'm not a good editor, very persuasive.

Comment Probably the best approach is PROF #7 "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." This can be seen in a Google Books search ("Margaret Nichols" sex). Also Google News (with archive i.e. Search Tools->Any Time->Archive), found some like Chicago Times, WaPo, Orlando Sentinel, WaPo. These are free searches but I'm sure there are more in the Gale/Ebsco/ProQuest/NewsBank commercial databases which I can access. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:53, 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 no consensus. KTC (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KTM 250 EXC-F[edit]

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

list of specs from motorcycle encyclopedia with no text, no indication of notability Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but convert to proper article. Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 17:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS. Zero claim of notability. Redirect to KTM#KTM models also acceptable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seems like it could be converted into a better article than it is now. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here's an additional ref [26]. There is another in the article. That's multiple sources so I think we can keep it. ~KvnG 23:50, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael H. Payne[edit]

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

Completing nomination for User:78.105.28.140, whose rationale was "I do not believe this meets WP:AUTHOR & cannot find multiple secondary independent sources discussing this person or his books/reviews. Article has been maintained for 5 years by an static Newport Beach,Ca ipaddr, which is where the subject lives/works...possible wp:COI?" I have no opinion on the matter (neutral). Ansh6 6 6 08:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the author is widely published in notable professional publications and has been the subject of significant critical attention from reliable third-party sources ([27], [28], etc.) and while conflict of interest concerns may be valid, they're not a valid reason for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I too was able to find several online sources discussing his works, including [29], [30], [31], and [32] . For what it's worth, his contributions to multi-author anthologies have also been mentioned in reviews of said anthologies, e.g. [33]. Finally, his having won awards in the Writers of the Future contest further establishes his notability. mwalimu59 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly reviewed his sole published novel. His SFWA award looks like to be minor and for bureaucratic service. He won the Writers of the Future contest, but that's awarded by the Church of Scientology – not exactly the same as a Hugo or Nebula. He seems most well-known for his self-published furry fanfic and webcomic, but who knows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Writers of the Future 'award' was actually 3rd place. The sources noted by mwalimu59 do not appear to be wp:RS, as they are blogs or fanzine type websites. goodreads.com is a reader-submitted review site and does not confer notability. publishersweekly.com has a listing for just about every book published, the review is hardly indepth and should not confer any notability. sfsites looks like web only fanzine. as noted by NinjaRobotPirate the SFWA award is a bureaucrats backslap and fanzine/vanity published furry fanfic is his main claim to fame. By the authors own admission he is not a 'real pro' writer having only 1 book published 15yr ago and some short stories. The bibliography section of the article is well-larded with non-notable reviews in non-notable publications and if this article survives (it shouldn't if guidelines are applied correctly) the list will be pruned back to notable works only. 78.105.28.140 (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: SF Site is a Locus Award-winning online magazine and a reliable third-party source for news about science fiction. Payne's short fiction has appeared in notable print publications including Asimov's Science Fiction, Tomorrow Speculative Fiction, Marion Zimmer Bradley's Fantasy Magazine, and Black Gate, plus notable online publications including Helix SF. He's no Margaret Mitchell or Harper Lee, but having only one novel in print is not a barrier to notability. Also, notability is not temporary nor is it a matter of opinion. - Dravecky (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are three reliable book reviews: Publishers Weekly, Kirkus and SF Site. Two of them are summary review sites not opinion reviews, and the third is an online-only genre magazine that doesn't suggest wider notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Green Cardamom. There just hasn't been enough evidence of notability presented, and I'm unsatisfied with what I've been able to find myself. Each claim of notability seems to be followed by a "but" that neutralizes it. He skirts the edges of notability but does not quite make it. If someone wanted to, they could try to find some furry-related page to merge relevant details, but I don't see any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 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) 00:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dravecky and Ninja. I've never heard of him, but his one major work has been reviewed by reliable sources in the field. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo H. Manalo[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor, fails WP:Politician. Article is like a résumé and soapbox, contrary to WP:RESUME and WP:SOAPBOX. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the mayor of a city of almost 100,000 people. That should be sufficient. If you don't like the content of the article, that is an editing process. Trackinfo (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being the mayor of a medium-sized city is not sufficient per WP:Politician. I would think there are sources that support his notability, but they are not present in this article, and I couldn't find them. If they are in Tagalog, or are offline, they still need to be added, otherwise delete. Grayfell (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Juan, Batangas, as he hasn't been the subject of enough reliable sources. This could be a case of systemic bias though, as in the Philippines mayors of even large municipalities or cities rarely get coverage, so there could be other sources (not necessarily in Tagalog, as most Philippine online media is in English). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopeless spam--there is too little real content and a great deal too much puffery. WHere we draw the line for mayors of cities is a little uncertain, but this shouldn't even be redirected--it should be deleted first, and then a redirect made, because the present content is objectionable. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as San Juan, Batangas isn't even a city, nor is it the largest town in the province. –H T D 17:28, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Integrated Primary Care[edit]

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

I tagged this article for issues last year, added it to my watchlist and would peek in on it from time to time including searching for sources. Well, today, I did an in-depth search including browser searches, Google News, Books and Scholar, and didn't find any promising sources. I found the following links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. All of them mention this center in one way or another including through the director (Alexander Blount) but nothing in-depth or significant. I'll admit I'm not an academic expert so I try and stay away when I can but I personally don't see anything to keep or improve this article. If possible, I'm open to redirecting to UMass or particularly University of Massachusetts Medical School. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 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, buff bills 7701 12:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found literally no coverage at Google News Archive. The links found by nominator's very thorough search do not amount to significance. The article, and the mentions, don't even make it clear what kind of entity this is. It doesn't sound like a hospital, or an outpatient clinic; is it a bureaucratic or teaching entity without other facilities? Is it a department of the medical school, or a freestanding affiliate? Who knows? This title could be redirected to University of Massachusetts Medical School, but this entity doesn't currently rate a mention at that article, and a search at the UMass Medical School homepage turns up nothing, so I would not favor a redirect/merge (hard even to know what to merge given the unanswered questions). --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's possible that the center's director, Alexander Blount, is notable even though the center itself is not. If someone wants to attempt an article about Dr. Blount, it might be a keeper. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bricklayer's Formula[edit]

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

This article does not give sufficient context. I don't understand what is it about. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't figure out what it is, either. It looks like someone using Wikipedia as a free web host. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a formula that appears in school textbooks as an example of a "real world" problem. I couldn't find discussion of it in reliable sources. Plus, there is no need for this article because "As you know the bricklayers formula is N=7LH". Moswento ^talky 14:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per all of the above. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 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. This is obviously a listing. The items are supported by their own companies and thus notability cannot be established. The only information we have is from the companies themselves. Much of the discussion here is clear OSE reasoning which is discounted. JodyB_talk 19:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalogue. Jasper Deng (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like this article as a topic. I would consider it a useful resource as a web developer. It's not a catalogue, because it compares products across multiple vendors. However that's where this article fails: it's entirely sourced for each vendor, from each vendor. In the absence of 3rd party sourcing for the comparisons, we should lose this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR, WP:SYNTHESIS. Pburka (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree that WP:NOTDIR or WP:SYNTHESIS are relevant to the article, which follows a similar format to many other comparison pages on Wikipedia covering computer-related issues, e.g. comparison of file systems. Sure, it could be improved with 3rd party sourcing, so I've added a refimprove tag, but that's not sufficient reason for deletion! zazpot (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of other articles does not justify the existence of this one. This one is very difficult to source with 3rd-party sources, while the one you linked is easily sourced with outside sources. The article as written (the one we're considering for deletion here) reads too much like a sales catalogue, while the other one does not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jasper, WP:Other stuff exists supports my remark above: see this part. I also challenge you to justify your assertion that, "The article as written (the one we're considering for deletion here) reads too much like a sales catalogue, while the other one does not." I disagree that either read like a sales catalogue: except insofar as they compare the intrinsic properties of a number of implementations of a notable technology (which is unavoidable, and indeed the point and the value of the articles), neither article encourages readers to buy anything at all. The article under discussion is, however, a useful resource for people wanting to learn about the differences between the SSL certificates currently in more or less widespread use on the World Wide Web, by consulting an encyclopaedic reference source that covers this. Improving the references may be difficult, but it is not impossible. Wikipedians would not exist if they gave up at the first sign of difficulty! However, if you delete the article, then providing good references for it will be an impossible task, so please do not do that. Improve it instead, or move on and leave it in place for others to improve over time. zazpot (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I notice you're the article creator. This article is nothing but a list of SSL certificates, there are plenty of third-party sites for that. Most notably there is very little encyclopedic prose and none of those certificates have their own articles. In short, it's nothing but a directory of certificates, which is out of Wikipedia's scope. I even don't like comparison articles on Wikipedia in general for that reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jasper, you are mistaken to say, "This article is nothing but a list of SSL certificates". If it were, it would be called "List of SSL certificates for web servers", and would be formatted like the articles beneath Category:Lists rather than like those under Category:Comparisons (and their subcategories). You will note that both these categories are ripe with articles lacking prose but which are nevertheless valued by those of us who (unlike you, perhaps) find structured content comparing reifications of notable concepts to be perfectly legitimate encyclopaedic material, not to mention darned useful. I don't come to Wikipedia for the prose, I come here for the information; and prose is a poor format for comparative information. Finally, you said, "I don't even like comparison articles on Wikipedia", which, if you act on that bias, suggests WP:TE on your part. So, I respectfully ask you to grind your axe elsewhere. zazpot (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Again your arguments are WP:OSE - I think it's pretty clear that regardless of the title, this page is out of Wikipedia's scope (and, can't you assume good faith a bit? Never did I say that my opinion about comparison articles in general was my reason for my previous comment). WP:NOTDIR has no exceptions for this article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have already addressed your WP:OSE comment: see above. I am indeed assuming good faith: if you read WP:TE you will see that bias ≠ bad faith. WP:NOTDIR doesn't, on my reading of it, even apply to this article as it stands, so cannot be used as a basis for deleting it. zazpot (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The thing is, you have not said exactly why NOTDIR does not apply to this page. How is a table listing all these certificates anything but a directory? (and TE doesn't even apply here, I'm not on some campaign to have these pages all deleted... nor am I trying to make a point by having the page deleted).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Simple: WP:NOTDIR lists six grounds for rejecting content, and it is doubtful to me that this article meets any reasonable interpretation of any of those six. That is why. As for TE, please re-read my original remark. zazpot (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huge effort I think the topic for this article is excellent, relevant, and useful, but there are large gaps in the rows (for instance, number of products) and the columns (for instance, price!). The page as exists is worthless (DELETE), but the page as it might become is meritorious (KEEP). Marc W. Abel (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed prices for a good reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you; that's fair editing. Keep the baby (i.e. the article), but throw out the bathwater, I say. zazpot (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or not-so-huge effort. The page is a useful resource, and needs minor reorganization: I understand WP:NOPRICES, but an indication of the commercial/nonprofit character of the organization is due. Another task is to ease comparison with the Mozilla Included CA Certificate List. The title should also be changed, I propose Comparison of TLS/SSL certificates for secure servers ale (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also challenge the notability of this page because there are no third-party reliable sources that even come close to completing this comparison page. There are third-party catalogues of SSL certificates but they do not help establish notability. We do not list all the items on, say, Amazon.com, just because they are listed/compared on that site.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You say, "there are no third-party reliable sources that even come close to completing this comparison page". I challenge you to prove that. Your remark about Amazon is a straw man. As for notability, I would think that as Project Bullrun and related efforts are scrutinised in the wake of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, some of the SSL certificates in the article may well find themselves getting much more attention from Wikipedia editors, as it will be notable which have, and which have not, had their keys compromised zazpot (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those might establish notability for individual certificates, but not a comparison article (is the topic of a comparison notable?). We have articles on various pieces of software but do not normally create comparison pages without reliable sources that do such comparisons.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If your question was not rhetorical, then my answer is as before: the article is fine to keep and will - as is the case with virtually every Wikipedia article - benefit from refinement. You say, "We ... do not normally create comparison pages without reliable sources that do such comparisons." I dispute that. There are multiple articles within, for instance, Category:Computing comparisons that stand as counterexamples, if you look at their early histories. zazpot (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's entirely an OSE argument (here the comparison is definitely invalid). Those comparisons are grounded in other reliable sources, for the most part (that document a comparison). You've completely dodged my argument based on whether it alone meets the notability guideline.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I would be grateful if you would re-read WP:OSE and take a closer look through the counterexamples I mentioned. Between those two resources, any reasonable concerns about notability should be satisfied. zazpot (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original nominator had it correct. Despite strenuous arguments to the contrary, it is merely a list of various SSL providers with minimal information about each and links. Arguing that it is not a list just because it is not titled "List of..." is specious, and claiming that WP:OSE offers support for the inclusion of this list is stupefying. However lovingly-tended this directory of SSL providers may be, it is still essentially just a directory. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not specious at all. The distinction between a list and a table and prose is primarily a matter of formatting. The article under discussion is formatted mostly as a table, and specifically a table comparing the attributes of various implementations of a technology. That is the same format used by many young comparison articles on Wikipedia, as pointed out above. This last point is why the support offered by WP:OSE is not a "stupefying" claim, but a perfectly comprehensible one. As for the article's title: in your (mis)interpretation of my statements above, you have put the cart before the horse. Finally, "specious" is a term carrying a connotation of deliberate deception, so I respectfully remind you to assume good faith. zazpot (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connotation is not denotation, and no implication of deliberate deception was intended. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elvis Presley. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Garon Presley[edit]

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

Not WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can add a realiable source. It seems extraordinary that this article has existed 10 years without any reliable source. No way to know whether it's real or urban myth. Sources, please (even though AfD is not cleanup). (I only came here because I stub-sort any stubs filing under "P".) PamD 10:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elvis Presley where the subject is already covered. Of course you can tell whether it's real or not - type the name into Google Books.--Michig (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Elvis Presley. Notable only in context of Elvis's relation to his parents, as in Kathleen Tracy's biography of Elvis. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. No way notable, even if a real story. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UTS Gridiron[edit]

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

Non-notable American football team. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Club teams normally are not considered notable for Wikipedia, and I can find no measure to make an exception. I find nothing in the news about the club and cannot make a case for WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. I suggest the enthusiastic editors try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:32, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christel Minotti[edit]

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

A BLP for an artist. The two links provided are both broken, thus this is unverifiable. I searched for significant coverage about her work, and found a few mere mentions about exhibitions but nothing that would pass WP:ARTIST.

Perhaps someone can find something in other resources, or in Finnish... SarahStierch (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - struggling to find anything at all about her online. If her website and her gallery website have disappeared it's probably a bad sign! There's evidence she's still participating in the occasional group exhibition [34] but this isn't a claim to notability. Because she left Finland before emberking on her career I doubt there will be anything in Finnish. Sionk (talk) 02:24, 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Doctrine Unplugged[edit]

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

One speech by Hilary Clinton does not merit an article. This article reads a lot like a school report and I do not think it could be rewritten to make a decent article. The title is also unlikely as a search term, so a redirect to Hillary Clinton seems unjustified. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The title alone is a problem: this phrase was used in one article in the Atlantic and gets maybe ten GHits. I don't see the evidence that this was a particularly long-remembered speech. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Clinton doctrine. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean move? That page doesn't exist right now. If you do, just a question as to why you think this topic is notable. as Mangoe pointed out, this speech doesn't seem to be particularly well remembered, and I'm not sure every speech of a former US Secretary of State that gets a news article merits inclusion in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisted mainly to give Bearian a chance to reply if they so desired :) (It's a holiday in the states, so if they live here, they might be delayed in responding). SarahStierch (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If this material is kept, then I'd like to merge all of this cruft to one place with a NPOV title. Otherwise, it should be deleted outright. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahkota Medical Centre[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. private hospitals are not inherently notable. Only coverage I could find is for some minor events being held there. LibStar (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, in general and per WP:ORG. -- Scray (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:25, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to List of K-1 events--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World Grand Prix 2001 in Melbourne[edit]

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

fails WP:EVENT. Just a sports event result listing. And this was a qualifying event for another event. LibStar (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of K-1 events This was a qualifying event for a qualifying event for the finals. There is no article on the event that this was a qualifying event for, merely a mention in List of K-1 events. Not worthy of its own article with the only source being a routine reporting of the results. Papaursa (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

These events are also not notable and should be included in my delete vote above. The UK winner qualified to be an alternate at a qualifying event for qualifying event. The Las Vegas event was a qualifying event for a qualifying event, though it had a strong list of fighters. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 30 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) 07:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these events meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 17:52, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telinga Kingdom[edit]

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

Telinga/Trilinga/tilinga is the generic name of Telugu country (parts of present-day Telangana and Andhra) used in Sanskrit. Telinga is used by some 18th century English authors to denote Telugu language. Notability of the term is questionable Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm too ignorant to give an opinion on notability, but I'd like to congratulate the nominator in providing more information on the subject than the article does itself. Thincat (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR / not significantly covered in secondary sources. Looking back into the article history (see this version) and tracing the cited Mahabharata reference, the relevant text actually refers to "Talavanas", which some (?) interpret as a reference to Telingas. Given such vague link to a term that itself is only trivially mentioned in the Mahabharata, I can't see how we can retain the article, at least in its present form. Searching for sources only brings up circular references; a few 19th c works of the form referred to in the nom; and a bunch of random websites of suspect reliability. Abecedare (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:24, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acumen (programming language)[edit]

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

Non-notable programming language. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Practically nothing on the web about it. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to establish notability. ~KvnG 00:00, 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 redirect to The Contender Asia#Contestants. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Khan Zaki[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - no real track record. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:22, 22 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 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to The Contender Asia#Contestants Doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK and the article lacks significant coverage from independent sources. Redirect to the television series where he appeared for one fight since he doesn't seem to meet the criteria for his own article. Papaursa (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Nothing shows he should have an individual article.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Contender Asia#Contestants per Papaursa, as the subject of the article has not received enough coverage outside of the show. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC, WP:BLP1E. If we redirect, does that mean that the remaining redlinks at The Contender Asia#Contestants are likely to result in the same treatment (assuming no independent notability)? Even if it's likely as a search term, a redirect to that table doesn't seem to me to provide much encyclopedic information about the subject. -- Trevj (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirection should probably be done for the other contestants also. It's still a search term, and there could always be a person who would try to look up the people in question. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gao Hengjun[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Page history suggests possible self-promotion or fan club. Lots of publications, but I don't think he is lead author on any. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few cites on GS. Looks like too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- Scray (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- He appears to have many patented inventions[35] and has co-authored many published research papers [36] Does he meet WP:PROF??-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless they are cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:19, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Equatorial tropical cyclones[edit]

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

There was a discussion on the talk page of this article, with some general agreement for deletion. I figure I'd bring it outside the project, since nothing was done to it. The article is largely primary research, as the one source provided doesn't include any latitude markings, nor does it include more recent storms. There is hardly significant coverage, as there is minimal info on why these storms are significant (despite the article saying they are). There is no attempt to include storms from another basin, largely because it is impossible to do as such. The article does include one sourced storm (Ekeka) outside of the western Pacific, but there is no proof that there aren't others. To summarize, the list makes no attempt to be an accurate worldwide list and provides no evidence that these storms are notable. It's a bit of an indiscriminate collection and basic liftcruft. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the only reason there is a recent increase in views is due to the well-known Typhoon Haiyan, which has increased views of a subsequent storm that was at a low latitude. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to respective articles that have the basin's records; alternatively, delete. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 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) 20:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long-worded but vague deletion rationale: the list seems a germane list of notable entries. It should actually be moved to List of near-equatorial tropical cyclones, since that is how the topic seems to appear in the academic literature (e.g. [37]). OR concerns are content issues that are to be solved by editing.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:36, 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caveman (electronic game)[edit]

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

This is a non-notable product. Beerest 2 (talk) 20:04, 22 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 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just one of many such games that were created and sold in that era. I can find no significant coverage about it. I can, however, confirm that it was being sold for $39.95 along with a lot of other similar type games. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable. But it does bring on a wave of nostalgia for late 1970s and early 1980s video games. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, now that I think of it, someone could create a list of these things. That might pass WP:LISTN. If someone did that, I would support a merge there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Badgley[edit]

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

Non-notable person. References are all WP:SPS or databases that provide only trivial coverage. GNews search turns up nothing. Google search with plausible co-terms to limit results shows no WP:RSes. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Federation X as it seems he's best known for that. First time producing that one documentary isn't much though Google News archives found articles and a browser search found several more from various local newspapers that it's still small. I also found two more mentions here (interview) and here (I found these through a search for his production company which seems to be as equally non-notable). Searches for his TV producer found nothing useful so obviously it was behind the scenes. Nothing else to improve this article. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated some of the sources. The KARP doc which Badgley produced, edited and directed was reviewed in the Seattle Times^[1] which is a major publication. It was also reviewed in the Philadelphia weekly ^[2], He is also heavily quoted in the book Grow by Eleanor Whitney ^[3] User talk: Frogflyattack

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:18, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Whittet[edit]

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

no visible evide of notability DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has won two awards at the Accolade Competition; here are some pieces about him: [38] [39] Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Accolade Competition seems non-notable, article has no substantive content added in the 4 years since its creation. If winning 2 awards in that competition is only claim to notability for David Whittet then that would, atm, seem insufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure - As a producer and filmmaker, I don't think he's notable. Google News searches actually didn't find much aside from the following:, 1, here 2, here 3 and 4. I was also actually going to say delete (recusing myself from the academic side as I am unfamiliar with that) until Google Scholar found some results from what look like seemingly notable sources. As a result, I'm not sure if the academic side makes him notable. Anyone want to clarify this? SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 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, KTC (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only substantive article I could find is in New Zealand Doctor, a "newspaper" published fortnightly with a circulation of 3000. The Accolade awards appear to be non-notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while does not meet notability guidelines as a filmmaker, he meets WP:GNG as a doctor from the articles SisterTwister found. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That nzdoctor piece is just a niche professional pub puff piece, I have to agree with the nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Puzzler? Shoot first; ask questions later. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

89000 (INDIAN)[edit]

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

Copy pasted from Dollar. Title is also somewhat awkward. Ehthically^Yours! 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete a bit of a puzzler. agged per WP:CSD#a10. Dloh cierekim 07:03, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majka Burhardt[edit]

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

Professional climber. whose actual notability seems to depend upon two books :one of which is in 8 libraries only, the other in 11. All other publications and claims are vague or unquantifiable, and there are no usable 3rd party RSs. Accepted by AfC, like most of the AfDs I am bring here these days. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill mountain guide who has written two non-notable books about climbing and coffee in Ethiopia. Not a notable mountaineering figure, in my judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 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) Baseball Watcher 00:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boeing customer codes[edit]

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

The article has existed for years now with no references. There's no way to verify whether the information is true or not (or if there is a way to verify that, nobody has bothered to add it). After about six years, a warning template was put up saying that unreferenced content might be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policies. For the past couple of years, no references have been added. The article should be deleted. Banaticus (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article now has some references. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is now properly referenced to what appears to be a reliable source, so meets WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful if specialised refrence material.--Petebutt (talk) 13:34, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Goodall[edit]

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

MMA fight who doesn't appear to have fought any fights for a second tier promotion, let alone a first tier--fails WP:NMMA. The article's only source wouldn't have been independent and appears to be either a dead or broken link--fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Agreed - I call WP:Vanity and/or WP:Advert.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:53, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wetta[edit]

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

Seems like a promotion for a guy who's looking to sell his life story to Hollywood. How reliable a source is mainjustice.com? Orange Mike | Talk 03:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been deleted multiple times for copyright violation and promotion of the article subject, this individual only has notability due to the fair claims act, at most a redirect to that article should be allowed. I believe it fails gng and although he did it twice I believe it falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I have just finished a source by source search through the sources to verify that there was no further copyright info. What I have found is that Wetta has an incidental mention in most of the article and was never the "key" person for one company he was one of five and the other he was one of two. This further makes me feel stronger this does not merit a stand alone article at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The individual is not notable. All of the coverage is about the two legal cases, not about him. There is no biographical information at all, and some of the information in the article is contradictory (did he quit, or was he fired?) If the cases had articles, he could be redirected to them, but in their absence, delete. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since the article has already been speedied three times and promptly recreated each time, a WP:SALT might be in order as well. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If salted it should include Jim Wetta and Jim wetta. if people watchlist the user the users are User:Jimwetta and User:Info2014 The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Dloh cierekim 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two brief mentions in online newsletters does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. WWGB (talk) 01:02, 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue whale penis[edit]

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

There is no reason for this to be covered separately from the article on the animal itself. It just looks like this is one of those pages that we make on April Fools Day to stick on the main page. I'm calling for a merge or a deletion. —Ryulong (琉竜) 03:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, blue whale does not have a section on reproduction (I see only one sentence, pointing at this article). I support creating the section in blue whale on reproduction, and merging relevant content from here to the new section. Chris857 (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to blue whale, in a new "Reproduction" section~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon consideration, Keep as passing WP:N. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if so desired. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The world's biggest dick, bigger than the ones we have on wiki which is saying something. We're NOTPAPER and this has more than enough coverage in its own right to constitute its own article. A summary of the penis and reproduction in the main article leading to this as a main article is fine. It would be unfeasible to merge given that this is largely about the proportions of the penis and not about whale reproduction and would bloat the main article which is already an FA. As the world's largest penis it certainly has claim to notability in its own right and is even the subject of scholarly papers and studies, most which can't be accessed on line. Tiger penis, Deer penis and Whale penis are notable. At worst it should be merged to Whale reproduction and made into a general article about reproduction.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the existence of other poorly written articles on animal penises mean this one should be retained?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are they poorly written?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the feature should also be addressed in the Blue whale article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Blue whale. Jarble (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18,660 page views in the last month. A lot of people are looking for this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, (a) as it is notable, being the world's largest penis, and (b) address in the Blue whale article, per Ipigott. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly both notable as cited and of interest for its record dimensions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Frivolous nomination. You might as well suggest that we shouldn't have an article on the human penis. Warden (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment reeks of failing to assume good faith.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also today's featured article. We don't delete such stuff; we feature it on the front page! A {{whale}} seems appropriate... Warden (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A critically acclaimed film named after a phallus and an article that is allegedly about marine biology do not really compare.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is bigger than some people at WP:ANI! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 23:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this is a proper reason to retain an article, Jaguar.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, my real reason would be that this article is notable enough for its recorded size, and it is generally also a popular article. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 00:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But why is it covered competely separately from the article on the blue whale proper? Why is there only a sentence saying "this is the biggest in the natural world"? How can it be so popular when it's got barely any internal links?—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The state of another article is not a relevant matter for any decision on this one. The blue whale article could be improved with a section on reproduction, in which that sentence, with the link to this article, would be entirely appropriate. A merge would wrongly affect the balance in the blue whale article. There are no valid grounds for either a deletion or a merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The blue whale article should have a reproduction section with a paragraph on the penis or something and a link to the main article, but there are far too many sources which exist other than what we have to make it anything less than notable in its own right. And it gets nearly 20,000 hits in a month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—and a snow keep at that! It passes all notability tests and I'm not entirely sure why this was nominated, given the number and range of sources already in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated because the status of the blue whale possessing the largest penis of any living animal is pub trivia at best, which is exactly why its in QI's Book of General Ignorance, one of the sources for the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, the sources don't reflect that and there are scholarly studies on whale reproduction and anatomy. Why don't you get on with something useful and contribute your knowledge of oceanography to articles instead of chasing a lost cause?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not a whale biologist and there are no such articles in use on this page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per User:Northamerica1000. No particular objection to a future merge, but it seems long enough and notable enough on its own.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that another dick joke?—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ability of people to find dick jokes everywhere is what separates the human from the animal. No, it was not intended as such.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:03, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tuerxun Jumabieke[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights. The article was created WP:TOOSOON and assuming he'll get those fights is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed - signing does not notable make.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:52, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Bakalopoulos[edit]

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

Non notable as an MMA fighter since she has no top tier fights. Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Her "world championship" BJJ awards are unsourced and, even if they weren't, they wouldn't meet WP:MANOTE since she was competing at no more than a blue belt level based on other results. Other claims appear to be puffery and are also unsourced. Papaursa (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sourcing makes it difficult. None of the competitions are at the highest level.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:52, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Spencer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and the article's only source is routine sports coverage, so it fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:52, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Disputandi[edit]

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

Online journal lacking the multiple, independent and non-trivial coverage necessary to demonstrate enough notability to have a Wikipedia article to itself. Previous deletion discussion focused on arguments that do not follow actual Wikipedia policy or notability standards... the only argument that at least tried to follow them claimed there were enough sources but then cited things that absolutely do not count under WP:RS rules. DreamGuy (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments at last AfD - peer-reviewed academic journal published by a university press yielding 395 WorldCat hits (apparently up from 370 last time) = a clear pass of Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), Criterion #1. I'm not sure why the nominator expects the consensus to change. St Anselm (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As explained in the previous AfD, I disagree with St. Anselm's rationale. However, the journal is included in the major selective database in the field, ATLA, which is a keep under WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since the last recent AfD discussion. The journal is in ATLA, which as noted by Randykitty, satisfies notability criteria under WP:NJournals. --Mark viking (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indexed by PhilPapers [40] and Philosopher's Index [41], the two most important indices for philosophy, so keep per WP:NJournals as Randykitty says. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 13:04, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Krumdiack[edit]

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

One top tier fight is not enough to meet WP:NMMA and her titles are from minor organizations that aren't even second tier. Coverage is routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:51, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mithun Murali[edit]

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

Uncited Herald talk with me 11:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Uncited" is not an AfD rationale: see WP:BEFORE. In this case, it was very easy to add a first reference, from the first page of a Google search. (As to whether this is sufficient to demonstrate the subject's encyclopaedic notability, that could be another matter.) AllyD (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, prominent role in a number of movies, thus notable enough. --Soman (talk) 12:44, 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, KTC (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found sources and added them to the article. Seems to be a notable actor in Southern India. Ehthically^Yours! 06:41, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Rafols[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights, thus failing WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:46, 30 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 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this bot leaves this message when I'm still editing the page. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:51, 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) 09:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Barrett (fighter)[edit]

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

He lacks the top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA and the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Does not look that he will ever meet WP:MMANOT.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:50, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Spencer Bown[edit]

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

Person who has garnered a couple of articles of human interest media coverage — but as all he did to garner that is travel a bit, none of it rises to the level necessary to make him notable enough to be permanently enshrined in an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a lot of coverage in newspapers when reviewing the search results in Google news. If that were all that happened, I'd agree it would be a one event item of news coverage. However, we see that coverage persists as he is covered again in 2013. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He traveled more than "a bit", he meets the GNG as I found worldwide coverage, and I don't know where the "permanently enshrined" comment comes from. A Wikipedia article simply means that a topic is notable. A Wikipedia article is not a shrine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 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 redirect to Rooster Teeth. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Achievement Hunter[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of this site. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:13, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:42, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rooster Teeth; not independently notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Taylor. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:44, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exploring Scrum: The Fundamentals[edit]

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

Article about a self-published book. No evidence of notabilty. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 00:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find a brief mention of this book in a Wiley text as a reference, but the problem here is that I can't find anything else to back up the claims that it's widely used and referenced. There's really no coverage in reliable sources. Now when it comes to something that "everyone uses and respects" in a certain field, this essentially falls under the argument of WP:ITSPOPULAR mixed in with WP:ITSUSEFUL. It's still expected that a book will gain some sort of coverage in reliable sources, which is what is lacking in this instance. A book can be somewhat widely used within a niche, but that doesn't guarantee notability. It makes it more likely that it'll gain notability, but it doesn't guarantee anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Corleone family. There is consensus that the article is not notable as standalone. I have chosen redirect over delete since the history remains intact, and someone may merge the content if they want to.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apollonia Vitelli-Corleone[edit]

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

Delete by redirect (WP:ATD-R) to Corleone family. Non-notable fictional character who died soon after appearing, served as a plot device. Topic already covered about as well at Wikia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Green Cardamom (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by redirect Not worthy of being a stand-alone article. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not really convinced that this fictional character would have used a hyphenated maiden name-married name combination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but are you supporting the deletion of the article? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 00:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Corleone family. Either is fine. I don't see any evidence of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Corleone family. No indication of notability. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:16, 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 no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Holland[edit]

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

Contested prod, which I was too late to endorse. It fails to indicate notability. Laun chba ller 19:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Coverage and exhibitions do not rise to Notable level. Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inclusion in the BP Portrait and Royal Society of Portrait Painters exhibitions does not imply WP:ARTIST notability; The press coverage of the latter was triggered by its subject rather than the artist. AllyD (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. When it was prodded, the article was very poorly sourced. I spent some effort tracking down as much press as I could find and adding it to the article. When I was done I felt it was enough of an improvement to make notability a debatable issue (rather than just not having any) and deprod the article. But I'm not certain it's enough to make a clear case for WP:ARTIST. And I think what you see is what you get: there isn't some hidden trove of sources missing from the article that would demonstrate notability more convincingly. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe Natalie Holland is notable. She has been exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery and was short-listed for the BP Portrait Award. Additionally her work has been featured in The Independent and The Telegraph. She was rated number 3 in Sally Perry's list of the six best portrait artists. Her portrait Annunciation was selected to appear in the Royal Institute of Oil Painters Annual Exhibition.World Indexer (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per World Indexer. Exhibitions and coverage in significant media outlets. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per David Eppstein, except I'm verging more on the keep side of neutral. The exhibitions in themselves don't meet WP:ARTIST, and the press coverage is triggered by the subject, not the artist. But it all adds up to a weak keep.Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy delete per A7. 108.218.12.104 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 00:19, 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.

^ http://seattletimes.com/html/movies/2016839740_mr25pricks.html
^ http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/music/features/134693898.html
^ http://growdiy.com/about

[1] ttp://seattletimes.com/html/movies/2016839740_mr25pricks.html

[2] ttp://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/music/features/134693898.html

[3] ttp://growdiy.com/about

[1]

[2]

[3]