Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 January	24 January >

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. Consensus is clear. I don;t see the pt of moving to Drafts -- its not as if a better article would be acceptable, because his career does not have notability in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Forester[edit]

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

Does not meet notability per WP:MILPEOPLE. Article is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. This is the perfect example of an article that doesn't belong in main space but with content that should be kept somewhere. It fails notability, but deleting it would fail WP:PRESERVE as some references and facts could reasonably belong to an article related to Operation Enduring Freedom. Diego (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - move to user space. Deb (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Can someone please explain which sections need to be taken out? Alask8er (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so much of what gets taken out, but what we do not have to put in. The guidance in MILPEOPLE (posted above) gives us notability standards which we should follow. Forester did not receive DSMs or DSCs or AFCs, or the MOH. Nor did he have a significant role in major battles. His memorial is properly set out at Mark A Forester at Find a Grave. – S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Also, his valor is confirmed and published at Military Times Hall of Valor. 20:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet notability guidelines, his death precludes the likelihood of him later gaining notability. While the death of youth in war is tragic and I am sure his contribution was heroic, Wikipedia is not a memorial. It looks like others have done a fine job across the internet with memorials, and that is where they belong. EricSerge (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - I fail to see the utility of moving this article into draft space. As EricSerge has pointed out, this person does not meet notability guidelines, nor is there any likelihood of that happening in the near future. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The utility is pointed out at WP:PRESERVE. Even if the subject is not notable, verifiable facts and references may still be used at other articles. Diego (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference is www.findagrave.com. The only fact that confirms is where he is buried. This is not really what WP:PRESERVE is talking about. EricSerge (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You forget [1] added above. And yes, this is exactly what PRESERVE is about - if you hide verifiable information that is not problematic, it's impossible to accumulate knowledge through a slow and steady process. Diego (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft or User space. This is an article by a new and inexperienced editor, who should be given a chance to improve the article per, our policy not to bite the newcomers. Alask8er, you can get help on creating articles at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. - tucoxn\^talk 00:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing whatsoever to make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear the writer was familiar with the subject and has included their "most notable" achievements but I do not feel that there is enough there to meet our guidelines. ~~The draft space is still subject to WP:BLP and~~ I do not see it being likely that this person does when conducting WP:BEFORE. In all best practices of the deletion policy this article should be deleted. I am sympathetic to the WP:BITE perspective of this nomination but I believe the article and it's potential have been fairly evaluated. I actually believe this editor has done a very good job at their first article but no amount of work would appear to make it eventually meet our guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 23:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand BLP. It's for living people. Diego (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely missed that they were deceased and BLP. Thanks for catching that. Mkdw ^talk 21:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Santos[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN Op47 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This player plays for S.L. Benfica B who plays in the Segunda Liga who is a Fully professional league. He is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderalgrim (talk • contribs)
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, confirmed by this. Article needs improving, not deleting. Also worth noting that WP:FOOTYN cited by the nominator is merely a WikiProject's essay, which was written many years ago, and which is not fit for purpose any more. Giant Snowman 18:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per official website of Benfica, passes on second criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL. Hitro talk 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw The article on S.L. Benfica B seemed to say it was the reserve team. Clearly I got the wrong end of the stick. Op47 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 05:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True Jesus Church in Singapore[edit]

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

These articles are either unreferenced or referenced in large or in whole to first party publications. There is, simply put, not enough reliable, third party coverage of the movement to justify these splinter articles. Additionally, the main article, True Jesus Church, is of questionable notability (see separate AfD and Meta discussion attached to that AfD). Finally, there are both major NPOV concerns, and possible copyvio concerns (see deletion history of True Jesus Church in Sabah).Sven Manguard Wha? 22:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also for deletion:

True Jesus Church in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
True Jesus Church in Taiwan
True Jesus Church in the United States
True Jesus Church in the Philippines
True Jesus Church in Myanmar
True Jesus Church in Korea
True Jesus Church in Japan
True Jesus Church in India
True Jesus Church in China

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Excessive split-off to subarticles of an already very questionable main article. I find it rather promotional rather than informative. There's also a lack of independent secondary sources as references.--Cold Season (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and summarise -- This is a Chinese Christian denomination. I do not share some of its theology, but that is by the way. It seems to have conducted missionary work in south and east Asia before between the wars and in refcnet times. I am not sure that there is merit in having the main article and China article separate. Similarly, the missionary activities outside China need gathering into one or a few articles. Individual reports of how people in particular countries came into contact with the movement are probably NN; similarly a single church in a country. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For all articles, merge whatever salvageable information to True Jesus Church. Perhaps there are more sources available in Chinese, but there's simply not enough coverage for the church's activities outside of their country (indeed, even the main church's notability is questionable, although this could be more attributed to a lack of English sources). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and summarise; there are serious WP:N issues, but some content may be salvageable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nothing to merge per deletion of the main article after the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Jesus Church. --Cold Season (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Highly dubious notability given that the main True Jesus Church article no longer exists. --DAJF (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A merge would have been appropriate if the parent entity were notable, but the recent deletion of True Jesus Church at AFD indicates that it's probably not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True Jesus Church[edit]

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

Per the Meta thread Massive, 100+ project cross-wiki spam effort by Jose77, and per local notability policy. This doesn't have reliable, third party sources; it's citations are to bible passages and internal publications. A search finds that there are some mentions of this organization in the broader context of religious splinter groups from China (and one mention on a website that tracks cults), but little that is substantively focused on this organization.

Even if sources were to be found, this article still needs to be deleted and re-created from scratch because 1) the person who authored it appears to have a serious conflict of interest (more on that in the Meta thread), 2) it is constructed entirely upon unsound sourcing practices (afformenetioned bible passages and tjc publications), and 3) it is written, some sections in particular, more as a recruiting document than an encyclopedia article. It is not, and should not be, savable in this form.

Please note that I will also be filing AfDs for the "True Jesus Church in ____" articles in a separate AfD. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Delete the page is unencyclopaedic and about a subject of incredibly dubious notability.SPACKlick (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This appears to be a Chinese denomination. I am far from convinced by the desirability of keeping some of the national satellite articles as free-standing ones. It must be born in mind that the activities of unregistered churches in China has to be partly clandestine, so that the published resources will be scanty. Nobody really knows how manhy Christians there are in China, but estimates run into 10s of millions, possibly even higher. If this church has only a fraction of that number, it will be very significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron: As someone that has studied that issue academically, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the clandestine nature of Chinese Christian churches is not a reason for low to non-existent coverage in third-party sources. The notable underground churches in China are, in fact, extensively covered by third party sources, especially those that the Chinese government views as significant enough to go after. (My personal opinion is that the CCP has a very, very poor understanding of the Streisand effect, and runs afoul of it often.) Even more in this case, where the organization is aggressively marketing itself, I would expect coverage if this were indeed a notable organization. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and failure of WP:GNG Secret ^account 18:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweep the Leg Johnny[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, no independent sources. Jinkinson talk to me 21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory search would have shown you numerous sources, such as Pitchfork & allmusic. 86.42.86.101 (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First few pages of a Google search found [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. --Michig (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the wealth of sources identified above. Gong show 20:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. In light of the compelling arguments presented above, especially by Michig, I withdraw my nomination. Jinkinson talk to me 20:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:SNOW). The article has been heavily edited since the time of the nomination for deletion, BLP1E concerns have been countered in the discussion, there are no delete !votes, and it appears that the nominator is satisfied with the editing that occurred to address potential BLP violations that may have previously existed in the article, per their comment in the discussion. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mille Markovic[edit]

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

Admittedly, the sources are in Swedish, which I don't understand. However, this is an entirely negative article of a BLP and I suspect he is at most a WP:BLP1E. Due to the nature of the subject, I am requesting the input of other editors. Pink Bull 20:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as article creator. And there is other information concerning the King of Sweden and Markovic and a book that was released in 2010 that hasnt been mentioned yet as well. This person is well within WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as you admit yourself you are not a Swede and do not understand the Swedish sources so are you really the one who should have put this article up for deletion?. Just asking.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information about the Markovics and the King of Sweden and the book. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not cleanup. You have some absolute cheek in trying to delete an article where you have no understanding of the sources and quite frankly had you bothered to do a Google Books search you would have known that it appeared in the book.--Laun chba ller 21:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Specially with additional sources provided by creator of the article. I do understand the concerns of the colleague who asked for deletion. If this is a notable person, which for sure he is, surely there must be non-Swedish media sources as well, including some in English. These English language sources must be added as well to make it more accessible to the English language reader. Circumstances of his death should be added. Author of the book is important and needs to be added as well. werldwayd (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There have been numerous reports about this guy in Swedish media for many years. For example, this page lists numerous articles in one newspaper from 2011-2014. He is clearly notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment cleaned out the npovLihaas (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you Lihaas for your improvements to the article. Apologies to the creator or anyone else offended by this nomination. My goals were entirely altruistic, as the article at the time of the nomination appeared to be at great risk of breaching our serious WP:BLP policies. --Pink Bull 00:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "I don't speak Swedish" isn't really a relevant excuse for a nomination. Use Google Translate next time. Peter ^Isotalo 11:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Persona was subject of a 2012 biography Mille Markovic: Biografin, which highly indicates notability. Since all votes so far are keep and even nominator seems persuaded after article was improved, an administrator might consider a snowball close here. Iselilja (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional clearing[edit]

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

Nothing is coming up on google or google scholar from a secondary source such as a Review Article. It appears not to have been taken up at all really. Hence is not notable. Unless it is called something else. But I can't see anything salvageable here. As it is psychological/medical it really needs some of these sources to justify its existence here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable and un-V-able. Or should that be namespace clearing? The hint is in the fact that the first sentence is about the person who discovered/introduced it. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--per lack of results in Cas Liber's reported search above. Lesion (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources to demonstrate notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Need refs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are lots of scholarly articles with this phrase therein, but I'm not sure they're all about the same concept. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that it came up as the two words were being often used as a nonspecific concept unrelated to this topic being discussed here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of a mess, using the term to mean different concepts. Now, I'm leaning delete per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Appleby (politician)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the GNG and other notability guidelines as he was only a passing mention in provided sources. Additionally, media coverage seems to be insufficient and I was able to find no reliable sources in appropriate context about this entity. Alex^{discussion ★} 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. --JamesMoose (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - he appears to be a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laubwerk[edit]

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

WP:PROMO page by promo-only account, company admits to their promotional intent here. No claim of WP:NOTABILITY. The articles listed as references #2 and 3 at this point focus on funding and predate the release of any product. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and request WP:SALTing of this entry. BlueSalix (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the language is too promotional. It can easily be toned down. Sure the purpose of this being written may be promotional but what counts for the purpose of Wikipedia is the way it is actually written. However I do think it should be deleted for lack of notability proven by lack of independent references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights (both losses). Only coverage are links to his fight record so he also fails WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Hasn't had a top tier fight in 7 years and is unlikely to get another one.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Iaconelli[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion. I think that the various developer credits are a credible assertion of notability, and don't think WP:CSD#A7 applies, but I do not think the references provided are good enough to pass WP:BIO. —Kusma (t·c) 20:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A not notable person.User:Lucifero4

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Fadiora[edit]

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

MMA fighter that fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. He may get the additional fights he needs but that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mdtemp (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy Definitely premature.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy May become notable, but isn't there yet.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lopez (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights (both losses) and lacks the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Lee Smith[edit]

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

Boxer who fails WP:NBOX and the lack of sources also means he fails WP:GNG. Notability is not gained from other fighters (WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Had a fairly short career and lacks the coverage needed for WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOX.23:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Snow close and speedy delete via WP:A10. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese phrases[edit]

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

Author appears to be writing an instruction guide on learning Japanese phrases. Some of the useful content is duplicated already in Japanese phonology and the rest, which the author referred to as a "lesson" [9], should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 19:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. 19:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Ivanvector (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a guidebook. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a phrase book either. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article not merely because this article is missing. I'm an advanced level student studying Japanese. Not only students,teachers too find it hard to give us the exact word to say at the exact time in Japanese. So for several days I referred to many teaching guides telling what to say, listened to audio's and found what a phrase really means. User:Ivanvector I understand what you say. That this article takes the shape of a teaching guide. But this is on the way and i have a lot to improve to support its body. User:Nishadhi who is a Sri Lankan had read my article at its birth (in my sandbox) She approved that this is an impressive topic. For example English_grammar#Personal_pronouns article shows examples to explain their personal pronouns. This article Japanese phrases will lead to phrases which are widely used. The reasons and occasions to use with samples will be added. But it will look a bit like a teaching guide due to its advising. What i want is to show what is correct and not to use google translator which sometimes students use and get accused by the teacher for the wrong translations. For simple phrases like this! If not like a teacher how can i prove these phrases and how and where to use? If this article still deserves to be deleted please do so if it goes beyond wiki policies. But i prefer the teachers comments who find this useful although it look like a guide. User:RHaworth I'm extremely sorry to embed you to this situation. I realize what your approval means. But the notification was a green tick saying that this article which was in the sandbox "was reviewed by RHaworth" :) The article is still developing too. I'm just 18 going on 19. I really need advises. I do my best to make wiki a complete fountain of knowledge in the areas I'm educated. So please i think this article needs development not deletion. User:Ohnoitsjamie thank you for your supporting :) (same comment is posted on article talk page)--ANDREW EUGENE ^Discuss 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The example you gave, English grammar#Personal pronouns already has an equivalent in Japanese, in the form of Japanese grammar, and in fact the Japanese language is quite thoroughly covered on Wikipedia already. See Category:Japanese language. Since you're taking a course in Japanese, you might find it interesting to browse the articles that exist already and see if there's anything you could improve, but remember that all information here must be backed up by a reliable source and cannot rely on original research. Ivanvector (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete While the creator has good intentions, it's not suitable for wikipedia. A language like Japanese probably contains millions of phrases, is it possible to list them all in a table? Timmyshin (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also think that Wikipedia cannot have all japanese phases and anyway Wikpedia is not a guidebook like stated above.Lemonmelonsuperstar (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may be useful, but it's more of a term paper than an article. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Hustle. No independent out-of-universe notability. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Tellegio[edit]

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

I redirected this to American Hustle, was reverted by an IP, and now bring it here. There is no independent notability and it should therefore be deleted or redirected. Giant Snowman 18:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I agree this is non-notable and only qualifies as redirect unless the article vastly improves before final decision rendered. If any IP reverts, then the IP should be blocked. Quis separabit? 17:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Frederick County Public Schools (Maryland). (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oakdale Middle School[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG: no evidence or assertion of notability presented. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frederick County Public Schools (Maryland) as per the standard middle school redirect-to-school-district decision usually rendered on AfD. Nate • (chatter) 03:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Frederick County Public Schools (Maryland) as per the standard practice for non notable mainstream primary and middle. schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010 in Slovak football[edit]

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

Article makes no attempt at prose and is just a stats depository, of which there is already one containing the information at Slovakia national football team results. Article is an unnecessary content fork of the aforementioned article, it is an orphan and contains no prose, so a merge is not appropriate. C 679 18:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed, all relevant information is already present in an existing article. These kinds of articles can be notable - but this one is not. Giant Snowman 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary fork, WP:NOTSTATS violation as well. Fenix down (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NSEASONS. This article makes no attempts at prose, and therefore fails the relevant notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Brook[edit]

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

Has not yet played a game in a fully professional league per WP:RLN. ... discospinster _talk 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:RLN and is not notable. Mattlore (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Raetz[edit]

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

Notability not established per WP:ARTIST. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The artist is notable for sure. You should search for it. There are hundreds of academic references. Celebrities become notable with a magazine page but sculptures and arists don't. WP:ARTIST approves the article. It has lots of resources. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 9 En.Wiki pages connecting to the article.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and mark for urgently needed cleanup~~. Although the article doesn't currently reflect it, the artist is notable. The SIKART database, more or less the standard biographical reference work for Swiss artists, covers him at a documentation level of 5 out of 5, reserved for the most significant artists, and includes an extensive biographical article. It also references a number of other reference works from 1958 to 1999 that cover Raetz, including Biografisches Lexikon der Schweizer Kunst, Künstlerverzeichnis der Schweiz, Lexikon der zeitgenössischen Schweizer Künstler and Künstlerlexikon der Schweiz. Sandstein 18:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article based on the SIKART entry and the German Wikipedia article; it should make the subject's notability more clear ... and be somewhat legible. Sandstein 18:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These (mostly paywalled) book sources suggest that the subject likely meets WP:BASIC: [10], [11] p. 84., [12] pp. 763-764, [13], [14] pp. 1930-1933, [15] p. 105, [16] p. 78. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know why this article nominated. Just one search on Google was enough to understand.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MoMA has work by Raetz from 1967 to 2007. http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=4787 Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs) 19:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above sources clearly demonstrating that the subject passes WP:ARTIST. This is just the sort of situation for which WP:BEFORE was intended. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electric art[edit]

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

Unreferenced and self-authored. I can find no relevant reliable third-party references, to 'electric art movement' or ' Elena Paroucheva' to prove notability. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as purely promotional. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither encyclopedic, or notable...Modernist (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaanus Sorokin[edit]

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

In the process of making sure the edit warring on this article stopped it was completely missed that this player completely fails to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. So it seems it should have been Afd'd to begin with instead of worrying about protection. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn player in low level leagues. Reso lute 20:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Player fails to qualify under WP:NHOCKEY, BLP article with no sources attesting to notability. Ravenswing 20:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable --Львівське (говорити) 07:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. WP:NHOCKEY suffers from Wikipedia:Systemic bias, as it is biased towards players in the North American league as being "notable". Jaanus Sorokin is a player in the top tier of professional hockey in Estonia, the Meistriliiga, as well as for the national team for the Olympics and World Cup. --Nug (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hardly; only one current North American league -- the NHL -- satisfies Criterion #1 of NHOCKEY as a top-rated professional league. The others are all European leagues: Russia's KHL, the Czech Extraliga, the Swedish Hockey League and the Finnish SM-liiga. The International Ice Hockey Federation ranks Estonia as the 28th most prominent nation in hockey, and has never ranked it higher than 23rd. The Estonian national team has never qualified for the Olympics nor for the championship division of the Worlds. That being said, NHOCKEY is the pertinent guideline. If you disagree with it, by all means state your case at the NHOCKEY/LA talk page and see if you can swing consensus to your POV. AfD isn't the proper venue to debate notability criteria. Ravenswing 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only "one current North American league"? How did you miss the other 7 North American leagues? This nomination appears somewhat WP:POINTY, given the discussion here[17]. This player fulfils criteria 6 of WP:NHOCKEY: "Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship)", WP:NHOCKEY says nothing about whether that national team made it through to the final rounds of the Olympic Games or the World Championship or not, nor anything about ranking of top national teams let alone about a cut-off at 22nd ranking out of 72 International Ice Hockey Federation members. Wikipedia:Systemic bias comes in due to the fact that it nominates prominent members of North American junior and college leagues as eligible at the expense of, say the Russian junior and college leagues. --Nug (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the fact that the other 7 leagues haven't existed for over 80 years (I assume you missed the fact he said current even though you even quoted it) and most were amateur leagues that led into the 1 current league from North America that meets criteria #1. Secondly even if he did meet NHOCKEY he still needs to meet GNG, which he doesn't. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the other 7 North American leagues would be the American Hockey League, East Coast Hockey League, Central Hockey League, Southern Professional Hockey League, Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey, Federal Hockey League and the Liga Mexicana Élite - if we were biased towards North America I'm sure they would all qualify for #1 --Львівське (говорити) 22:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Nug, your vote is basically "Keep because he is Estonian". Not good enough. Show that he meets WP:GNG with reliable sources and you'll be getting somewhere. Reso lute 14:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. Claiming that a conversation "disrupts Wikipedia" in which the question was raised, "Truth be told, looking at that article, there's another factor: do you think Sorokin passes notability standards? I'm not seeing it, myself," just goes to highlight Nug's bad faith on this matter. Ravenswing 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Somewhat dubious notability (looks to be local-only, e.g. http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=69616) and the article seems to be a magnet for socks/SPAs. --Sander Säde 15:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding - even local notability seems rather low, as there are only articles that mention him passingly, as a member of a team among others. For example, [18], [19]. --Sander Säde 15:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Top Estonian League doesn't get enough coverage for the presumption that all competitors are notable. Athlete never competed at Olympics or top level World Championships. Can be re-created if he ever meets GNG or NHOCKEY in the future. Patken4 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle–UST rivalry[edit]

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

fails WP:NRIVALRY . 3 of the 4 sources are dead links but the article just seems a long list of results. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep. Has the nominator did what was asked at WP:BEFORE? I immediately found four extensive sources on this one. –H T D 15:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG: [20], [21], [22]. Also, topic notability on Wikipedia is based upon the availability of reliable sources, rather than the state of sources within articles, per WP:NRVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually La Salle's main rival is Ateneo de Manila, but also several sources which cover La Salle's and UST's rivalry, such as The Philippine Star sources above. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many rivalries there are, as long as there is, and there are sources, an article can be created. –H T D 04:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul Soccer Club[edit]

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

No indication club has played in a national competition as required by WP:NFOOTY let alone received significant levels of coverage to pass GNG. Was AfD'd seven years ago with the decision to keep but there is nothing to indicate notability issues have been dealt with Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is no indication the club meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Sestina[edit]

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

no citations, false claims Wikiwatch398 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for John E. Sestina[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Has written some books. CEO of red-linked company bearing his name. Uncertain notability. Has received some awards, not sure how prestigious they are. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax or not, there isn't a snowball's chance of this having any other result. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Tiao[edit]

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

A lengthy, unreferenced article with a lot of mislabeled and unlabeled images irrelevant to the article's supposed subject. I can't find any references to substantiate this article's content; it appears to be an elaborate hoax. See related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Yang Tiao. Muchness (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I brought this up at WT:CHINA because there seemed to be something not quite right with it. I don't want to regurgitate what I said there, but as Muchness states, it appears to be a hoax, and unless some reliable sources can be found, I feel it should be deleted as such. --Kateshortforbob _talk 14:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I declined a WP:CSD#G3 request for deletion as I didn't think it was a blatant enough hoax. I tried to find sources but the best I could find was being included in List of people of the Three Kingdoms and an extremely brief mention of the name here. I suspect that the person was real, but that the content in this article is made up. The photos being of different people is certainly suspect. SmartSE (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a few telltale signs, in addition to the concerns already raised: 1) All the Chinese characters are obviously (to a Chinese speaker) from Google Translate. 2) Rafe de Crespigny's A Biographical Dictionary of the Later Han to the Three Kingdoms (23-220 AD), which meticulously lists all persons mentioned in historical records of during those years has only says this about "Yang Tiao": "As Commandant of Chengyang county in Jiyin in 172, Yang Tiao was involved in the restoration of the Spiritual Terrace associated with the temple of the sage Emperor Yao." This is vastly different from the article here, and most importantly it's talking about 楊調, not 楊體凹 (What kind of stupid name is that anyways? See point one) 3) The "Yang Tiao" in List of people of the Three Kingdoms and the PDF in the above reply are referring to a 楊條, whose only record in history was described in that PDF (which erroneously says the year in which he thrived, the second year of the Taihe era, was 367 - it's actually 228). Nothing in the historical records justifies what was written on the article, and it appears that it is only an unfortunate coincidence that this ficticious Yang Tiao shares the same romanization of two other real, but still non-notable, Yang Tiaos. _dk (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Chinese characters used in the article mark it as an obvious forgery. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Silly article, the name 楊體凹 gives it away. None of the claims are backed by any sources. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nonetheless, I had a good laugh at the "Marquis Dragon of Gong (Chinese: 侯龙的锣)" part. I don't think the creator knows any Chinese, rather I believe he relied on an online translator to generate the characters, explaining the ridiculous Chinese name. Edit: I just tried "Yang Tiao" in Google Translate and indeed, it generated 楊體凹...Timmyshin (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of Google's services rely on Wikipedia. If you type in "Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi" in Google Search, you will get the Wikipedia article on the side, plus a few of the top images from Google Image Search, next to the search results. Google Translate's language database also relies on Wikipedia articles. Theoretically, if I were to modify Wikipedia so that "Barack Obama" corresponded to "坏人" (bad person) in Google's database, that too would be the result that comes up in Google Translate. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I think that one of the "Keep" votes is not 100% serious, and the other basically comes down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That said, happy to userify if someone wants to move it to a fansite or somewhere where this sort of content is welcome. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who played characters that portrayed Doctor Who[edit]

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

This page span out of List of actors who have played the Doctor where it was thought to be too niche. However, this article has no external sourcing, nor are there likely to be any sources that discuss these appearances in depth (except possibly David Bradley's, and that has its own article). This sort of content would sit well on a Dr Who wiki, but it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Ged UK 12:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Admr Boltz 13:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LOLWUT?! I can't believe such an article even exists. It's too weird to delete. Let's keep it. BlueSalix (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list of canonical actors portraying The Doctor satisfies WP:LISTN, but this is unreferenced trivia more appropriate to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate! Exterminate!. Per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminieren - more suited for a fan site--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This GIF comes close to expressing my confusion: [23] Seriously, though: the circuitous title itself is a flag that maybe this is a little too niche/through the looking glass to be appropriate here. --EEMIV (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the moment at least. I'ld like to point out the title is an attempt to find room for more than one kind of list. The original table "Actors who played characters thought to be the Doctor" had a long history in the actors article it originally came from, but it got pushed out when tables that included Doctor Who leads, stand-ins, spoofs, even such timey-wimey phenomena as the Dreamlord, who was a creature of the Doctor's subconscious, started to fill the article. The existence of false Doctors has been a recurring feature throughout the show's long history. The reason the new article is not just called "Fake Doctors," or some such, is that at around the same time a debate started raging over whether the performers in the telemovie "An Adventure In Space And Time" would be listed in the actors article. I had hoped to make it possible, if not through a single article, then at least through a few links, to find out about every performance that portrays, in some way at least, a version of the Doctor. If you feel this article is not fixable through renaming, reorganizing, etc; then, I would propose that the older, more established table, be recast as something like "Psuedo-Doctors." As to 'notability' I would point out that 'psuedo-doctors' are comparable to these existing Doctor Who lists: List of Doctor Who Henchmen, List of Doctor Who Historical Characters, List of Doctor Who Robots.

. jg (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yeah, this is way too over-specific and crufty. And it's very poorly sourced. This kind of thing belongs on a dedicated Doctor Who wiki, not here. Reyk _YO! 04:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - seriously, what?!?!? 94.193.96.72 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the doctor who page and then delete it does not need its own page! Dtbwlr99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, thanks Finlay McWalter--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zahn's Airfield[edit]

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

I de-PRODed the article and brought it here in hope to get some input. The article is basically unsourced and was PRODed on the grounds of notability. Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Simpson[edit]

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

Non-notable vanity page. This info should be on IMDB, not wikipedia Toypadlock (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable; the entry is very limited and over-reliant on a primary source, and the only solid secondary sources is insubstantial coverage of something the subject was part of rather than the subject itself. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An "angry rant" in The Telegraph and an interview in something called Stumped Magazine aren't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G7. (WP:Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advya Bajpai[edit]

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

Autobiography of actor. Only verifiable source is facebook. In an earlier version there was a claim of nomination for an award. PRODded, but dePRODded by original author/subject. No evidence of any notability. PamD 10:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 10:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 10:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom, fails on WP:ENT. Hitro talk 10:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Sole contributor has blanked the article now. G7 applies here. Hitro talk 10:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Meher[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable artist, by blocked sockpuppeteer Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prakash Kumar Meher. Only claim to notability so far is being son of notable artist, and winning minor award for craft: no indication of how he passes WP:ARTIST. Prakash Kumar Meher, by and about same person, was speedy deleted twice before and prodded twice on notability. Can't find anything about him online in reliable sources. Ruby Murray 10:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not Notable.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2014. If he wins the elections, he would be notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Redirecting seems therefore the best solution, so that in case of a win the article can easily be resurrected. Until then, this appears to fail WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dingethal[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. He is a non-notable businessman and campaign staffer who is running for Congress, but hasn't seen much support or made much news. I'll reiterate WP:Crystal as well. PrairieKid (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC) I now am proposing a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2014#3rd District. PrairieKid (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: he's gained notability as a staffer and environmentalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orser67 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 12 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2014. A redirect to a page about the election is a common (and appropriate) outcome for candidates for a national office. The references about the subject's staff work or activism do not meet WP:GNG/ Enos733 (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I support the redirect. PrairieKid (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pastore Fonnese. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dogo Sardo[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, unable to find sources even using alternate names such as 'dogo sardesco' --TKK! bark with me! 10:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to vote, but I did heard of this dog - breed, here and there, Like [24] here [25] and like [26][27]

. and also from a Sardinian friend. Pictures Looks like they have some things in common, no? Dgwallpapers.net Dogo sardesco The little brother of the Cane Corso, [28] living in Corsica, the next island. Why not ask someone om the Sardinia project. Hafspajen (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Looks like it has an article on Italian Wiki -> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogo_sardo, Italian ref More ref in ITalian [29][reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, the article on the Italian Wikipedia does not include any references. One of the links you've given is the only ref already included in the article - the others seem to be forums or unreliable sources. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, it is a rare breed, so nothing on AKC or FCI. This is what we have, [30] and I hope this will be

OK: [31] Hafspajen (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC) And a lot of Italian newspaper articles on the dog. And I do read Italian even if I speak not so well. Hafspajen (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion; the page should probably be a redirect to Pastore Fonnese for now. The breed (or type, since there's nothing to say it's a breed) gets some mentions. It was one of four indigenous Sardinian dogs present at a raduno (a sort of meeting of dog owners, not a show or a trial) at Scano Montiferro. It has a listing on agraria.org, a site that is often quite reliable. However that listing is written by the same person who organised the raduno, so can hardly be regarded as independent confirmation. The newspaper clippings in the YouTube video posted by Hafspajen indeed confirm that the Italian army used Sardinian dogs; however the dogs are described as being the heavy breed of Fonni (i.e., the Fonnese) or light dogs from Ogliastra. Neither of those is the Dogo Sardo, nor did I see the word "dogo" anywhere in those clippings. Until and unless the Regione Sardegna takes an interest in establishing whether or not this is a breed really distinct from the Fonnese, I find it hard to justify an independent article. It is disappearingly unlikely that it will get ENCI recognition unless the region takes the first step. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Justlettersandnumbers, it should be redirected to Pastore Fonnese for now. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rozz Rezabek[edit]

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

Doesn't seem sufficiently notable to me — although I admit that the genre in question is way out of my area of expertise. Any notability appears to be completely related to Courtney Love and Kurt Cobain without any independence, and the bands that he was in also appear to be insufficiently notable (and I am including them in the discussion. Delete all. --Nlu (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Trend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Theatre of Sheep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definte keep for Negative Trend - plenty of coverage in GBooks (why didn't the nom find it? Some are even listed in the article) and elsewhere (Allmusic reviews, staff review from Punknews, etc.), in addition to the book already cited. I don't see any valid reason to delete there. Weak keep for Theatre of Sheep. There's an article here plus the track in the film - Google News archive may find more when it's back. As for the Rozz Rezabek article, I think a selective merge to Negative Trend would be in order. --Michig (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have just added AfD templates to the Theatre of Sheep and Negative Trend articles as the nominator failed to do this. Consider the seven days to start here. --Michig (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (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) 08:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Faena[edit]

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

Does not show ample notability. He has made 1 film and had commercial work published in 3 magazines without anyone having been cited talking about the work or the film. This article was nominated for deletion based on having no refs when first created and template was removed without comment by original author. Lopifalko (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the flurry of activity that has taken place since this AfD was posted, the article still only shows that he has been employed by magazines, and such employment obviously involves photographing celebrities, nothing noteworthy about that in itself. The article does not show why he has been influential within his field. He has not been recognised by other reliable sources. -Lopifalko (talk)

Comment. He doesn't have to be shown to be influential within his field. Evidence for influence is sufficient to show notability but not necessary for it. You're right, though: much of the article is little more than name-dropping. Still, one has to concede that these celeb names have many people awestruck. (Not me.) ¶ I do have a soft spot for this article thanks to the one sentence "Nun Head" was controversial because it showed models potrayed [sic] as nuns being nude and having lesbian sexual affairs: surely it takes photographic skills (or anyway art direction skills) to show that nude women are nuns and that their frolics are affairs, not just one-night-stands. (Here ["NSFW"] are some of these nunly pics.) ¶ Even when (seemingly) provided, sourcing seems dodgy: wondering how one web page whose title doesn't mention Faena would say that he'd photographed campaigns for seven brands, I took a look, and sure enough it only says he photographed one of these. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be editorially redirected. Sandstein 10:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1889 Ulster Senior Football Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable as event did not actually take place. Only content of the article is a statement to that effect. ScoobyHugh (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ulster Senior Football Championship. An article might be justified if the event was definitely planned and then cancelled and there is something significant written about this (like the 1994 World Series), but that doesn't seem to be the case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is evidence the event was planned but cancelled; redirect otherwise. At any rate, does not meet WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennic[edit]

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

None of the references for this small company seem to be more than trivial PR DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to parent company. Not sure why this is at AfD. Two keep votes at last AfD. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of keep !votes in the last AfD, which was in 2006, is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has it become less notable in the last 7 years? If so, how or why? Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— It seems notable enough. I added some material with two new sources to the technology section. It seems that they were really the first to support 6LoWPAN networking in their chipsets. That's something, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the typical financial info sources, among the sources cited are some academic books in which independent researchers discuss Jennic's proprietary technology. A quick search in EE Times [32] found plenty of additional articles; some are mildly modified press releases e.g. [33], but others like [34] clearly are not. The situation is similar with EDN (magazine) [35], e.g. this is clearly not just a regurgitated press release. So, I'd say it's pretty notable considering all sources. Also, JenNet-IP could probably be merged with the company article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tonghua Dongbao Pharmaceuticals Ltd.[edit]

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

No specific notability, for a company whose general method of operation is to copy what has been done elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first source is not independent, third source is directory listing. Chinadaily source would go toward meeting GNG, but the article isn't there yet, and I could find no other sources with substantial coverage on the topic. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:G3 and WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MYCROFT Enigma Code[edit]

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

I could not find a single source verifying this. Fram (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as hoax. I'm pretty sure for one thing that this isn't how you set up an ULTRA/Enigma device. Mangoe (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And even if sourced, one particular setting of this encrypation device does not warrant an article.TheLongTone (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smells like a hoax: Mycroft for a German code? Even if it isn't, it's too trivial for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enigma didn't operate on the basis of specialised codes: this is almost certainly a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheExamCollection[edit]

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

This article about a company has no references which refer to TheExamCollection. A Google search for TheExamCollection gives one company web page which is non-functional. I could find no references to TheExamCollection in reliable sources. The article seems to be an attempt to be promotional. SchreiberBike talk 06:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This adds nothing to Certification. Its sections on particular IT vendor certificates is close to WP:UNDUE. The title is unlikely as a search term, so no benefit would result from a redirect to Certification. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
change: Some change has been occurred, Now its totally relevant to the certifications and general information regarding Certification. There is no extrnal link for any brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.181.106 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's hard to even see what it's claiming to be, let alone what it's successfully demonstrating through independent sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is quite informative regarding different certifications without representing any company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadraza092 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incoherent spam (or, more likely, an attempt at SEO). The article's creator says "Article is quite informative regarding different certifications without representing any company", which is odd since the article is full of certain IT certs, and the article title is the same as a website which offers exactly the same certs. How could the article's creator not know that their article has the same title as a business which does exactly the same thing that they're writing about? bobrayner (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Specific companies certifications has been removed , now there is any further reason for deletion this page.In future , When Ever this page will be edited, It must b general and for knowledge sharing purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadraza092 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, you can't vote twice to keep your article. bobrayner (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced/OR article of unclear notability, with unencyclopedic language and unclear scope.Dialectric (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like cruft - I don't see any encyclopedic value. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. as WP:TOOSOON. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dementia (2014 film)[edit]

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

I came across this initially via a speedy WP:A7, which I declined because films don't really qualify for any of the speedies unless it's promotional, which it wasn't. It was pretty much WP:TOOSOON for an entry, which is why I'd moved the article to User:Henry Iporac/Dementia (2014 film) to avoid having to go through the AfD process. Even after a search, all I was able to find were a few brief mentions about who would be starring in the film and that they shot a test reel. The problem here is that filming hasn't started officially and until we have more coverage this is just too soon for this to pass WP:NFF. I didn't want to have to nominate this, but the original editor has cut and pasted the article back into the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are sources but they don't seem to rise to WP:RS level. As such TOOSOON does seem to apply. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guidelines for future films. It can be a stand-alone article when filming begins. @Henry Iporac: We have a new "Draft" namespace that you can see at WP:DRAFTS. Would you consider moving the article to a draft page until March, and if filming begins, we can move it to the mainspace? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It'd probably be better to move the original version of the article at User:Henry Iporac/Dementia (2014 film) to the draft space, as that has the more complete history. This particular version is one that he cut and pasted into the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Draft is the best place to put TOOSOON articles - this will make them easier to find than in user space. Of course in this case we should ask Henry first, as the draft is in his personal space. Diego (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Pal: International Military Tribunal for the Far East and Indian nationalism[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Only source is amazon ([36]). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2014 (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/2014 January 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 08:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, no coverage in reliable, third party sources, not even an article in the book's native language version of Wikipedia, which is certainly big enough and active enough for that to be a meaningful distinction (especially as it would be useful in deciding whether or not we're simply missing the sources because they're not in English or if there simply aren't any). Sven Manguard Wha? 23:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently this is just a chapter listing, and would have to be started over from scratch. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2014 (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/2014 January 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 04:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2014 (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/2014 January 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 01:12, 24 January 2014 (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/2014 January 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I probably have to disagree with the general consensus, but I found very reliable sources. This is from the New York Times, this one from The Hindu, this journal from the Asiatic Society. The article is in a horrible state, I agree, but it is sure notable enough to be kept. I found many a source by a quick Googling. Ethically ^(Yours) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Improved the article's condition. Marked it as a stub and added references. Ethically ^(Yours) 16:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In those 3 sources, I only see coverage for the Judge and why he is notable, I see no mention at all of this book. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times source says about it in the very beginning. Ethically ^(Yours) 07:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I see now. Well, as it mentions neither the author nor the book by name...and even if it did it would only have been a passing mention...it is insufficient in determining notability. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources found by User:Ethically Yours are not significant coverage of the book, rather about Judge Pal, that mention the book in passing. If there are significant book reviews in Japanese that would be helpful. -- GreenC 18:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need to know about the judge and the book. The references are sufficient.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, and I agree that there is no coverage in reliable, third party sources. This article should probably be merged into another article dealing with the topic at hand or be used as a bibliography citation for Indian Nationalism. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The judge is notable, but the book is not. There is evidence of significant coverage about the book. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Nakamichi[edit]

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

Musician who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Only source in the article is not an independent reliable source since she is artistic director of this festival [37]. Searches in English only find this local paper article [38], while searches in Japanese (中道リサ) find no significant independent coverage. Everything else is either concert announcements, which don't count, or promotional material for her festival. Michitaro (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the awards at the competitions?--Mishae (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article has been corroborated with an independent source. If you can find those sources, as well as sufficient independent significant sources, I will withdraw my nomination. Michitaro (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well she can't made up an award, could she? Like, wont that be considered slender on her part?--Mishae (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it is not outside the realm of possibility. That is why everything in Wikipedia has to be WP:VERIFIABLE. This is an article in which nothing is verified. And when I search her name both in Japanese and English, nothing significant comes up. You need to do more to show this passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wonder what user @Randykitty: will say about that. If nothing is verified doesn't mean that you should nominate it for deletion. Wikipedia have a ton of articles that use external links and not reliable sources and no one cares about those. While, articles that I write, are automatically, without question get deletion nomination!--Mishae (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:OSE. Just because other articles have a problem does not mean this article satisfies WP:GNG. If your articles are getting nominated for deletion, perhaps it would be good to more closely review WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your opinion, she made up an award? That's ridiculous!--Mishae (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a legitimate argument for an AfD discussion. See WP:AADD. Now, another user has added a source to the Cleveland Piano award. Unfortunately, it refers to the wrong person (Yuko Nakamichi, not Lisa Nakamichi). But looking at the Cleveland site, it seems that the Mozart Prize is one of the minor prizes given every year [39]. While there is no record on the site of Lisa Nakamichi winning that prize, even if there was a record, it clearly does not satisfy criterion 9 of WP:MUSIC: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Notability has not yet been proven. Michitaro (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the user has noticed the mistake and removed the source. Michitaro (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidence of notability is just not there. Will reconsider if WP:RS sources demonstrating significant award(s) is presented. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how this person satisfies the basic notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding anything through web searches, nor a qualifying WP:MUSICBIO criterion. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not delete those? Markku Laakso and Leonid Korchmar, they are much older and have only one external link?--Mishae (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again: WP:OSE. Do also note that WP:NRVE states: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." So just because an article only has one external link does not mean it definitely should be deleted. It is only after checking to see if somewhere there are not sufficient independent reliable sources to prove notability should it be nominated. So if you have made such a concerted search regarding those two figures and can find no good sources, feel free to nominate them for deletion. The problem here is that multiple editors have failed to find sufficient reliable sources for Lisa Nakamichi, and that is why it is being considered for deletion. Finding other problem articles will not help this article: you must find real sources to improve it. Michitaro (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I moved to an external link so that folks here wont think that I promote anything. However, WP:NRVE also states:

If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.

Which makes me wonder, if its inappropriate to delete (or PROD) an article solely on the lack of notability (and in this case verifiability).--Mishae (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also proposed deletions of the above mentioned articles. I will see to it, what will happen.--Mishae (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you quote could be written better, but the statement merely underlines that one cannot argue that an article is not notable and should be deleted when there is the possibility of significant coverage. In other words, it is reiterating that significant coverage is the main standard for judging notability. Otherwise, lack of notability is one of the main reasons articles are deleted (see WP:DEL-REASON). Michitaro (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying that there might not be any future coverage on Lisa Nakamichi, yet, somehow there will be coverage on Markku Laakso and Leonid Korchmar???? Care to explain how? Plus, by removing one of the non-notables doesn't mean that your site will be free from scum articles.--Mishae (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nowhere made a judgement on Laakso and Korchmar. I only reiterated general Wikipedia policy. From your repeated questions, it is clear you have not sufficiently familiarized yourself with Wikipedia notability guidelines. For instance, note WP:ATA#CRYSTAL: Notability cannot be judged based on what might happen, because it is always possible it might not happen. Notability is judged based on what exists now. I recommend that you closely read Wikipedia notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:BIO, etc.) before making another comment. Michitaro (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, tell you what: I admit that I am not familiarized with GNG, because in this case we are talking about music. And to be frank, I just misunderstood your point and I apologize for any misunderstanding. There is no need to tell me over and over to read GNG and point me to other unrelated to this person rules. If you want this article to be deleted, feel free. Making Wikipedia having less articles means that there will be less participants.

I'm still concerned though about your believe that she might made up awards comment. Like, if so, we could also assume that Hajime Sugiyama didn't served in World War II for instance because it cites books with no reference to pages.--Mishae (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you are getting to understand some of the rules about notability. For music, WP:NMUSIC gives the guidelines. There is much discussion on Wikipedia about how editing or deleting articles may discourage new editors who don't know the rules. But the rules have to maintained or the quality of the encyclopedia will suffer. And since you are a veteran editor with far more edits than me, I would assume learning a bit more about how Wikipedia works would be less frustrating than productive. Finally, since I do new page patrolling, I should emphasize that I've seen a lot: hoax pages, blatant self-promotion, faked evidence, etc. Even famous people have been found to embellish their resumes. It happens. So all claims have to be verified. But with over 4,000,000 pages on Wikipedia, we can't check everything immediately. If you can help with that process, that would be appreciated. Michitaro (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have seen self promotional articles myself too. Mine aren't promotional though. Articles that I write even though contain an external link, don't say that he is such and such, it said he is such and such because. Now, can we shake on it, since I am a new page patroller also, although not yet experienced in that field. Quality of encyclopedia wont suffer just because someone is not notable. Quality of encyclopedia suffers when someone not references articles at all, such as here: Sasha Mäkilä. What's this? Personally I don't care if the article will be deleted, what makes me sad is that sometimes I waste a whole day, and only get greeted with deletion template. :(--Mishae (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got a great idea! Lets collaborate together on this: You stationed in Japan, right? Can you be so kind to go to your nearby library and see if they have books related to this particular pianist? Like since she is Japanese-American you should have sources offline about her. By the way, in your opinion am I veteran editor one, two, or higher rank?--Mishae (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is getting off the topic, let's take this discussion to our talk pages. Michitaro (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Institute, Notre Dame[edit]

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

Non-notable academic unit. No independent references. Google shows lots of passing mentions but no in depth coverage. Redirecting to Notre Dame College of Arts and Letters a possibility, but that has no references at all. PROD removed without improvement to sourcing. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure but leaning towards delete or merge. Secondary educational institutions have gained a de facto presumption of notability but this doesn't seem to be it's own college. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthellen Josselson[edit]

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

fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. suspected WP:AUTOBIO. created by a single purpose editor and then curiously worked on by Rjosselson (talk · contribs). LibStar (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a reluctant keep since there is clear evidence of COI. But the Fulbright Fellowship is a pretty major award. It satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. I am less sure about the other two awards. But the Fulbright is sufficient on its own. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having regard in particular to various published works - notability satisfied --Zymurgy (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fullbright is not sufficient to pass WP:Prof but 15 publications with over 100 cites on GS is. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Besides the clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 mentioned by Xxanthippe, she is a fellow of the American Psychological Association (mentioned here though not in our article) which I think is enough for #C3 (unlike the two fellowships we mention). Has User:Rjosselson been told not to edit her own article? She should be. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Napier Partnership Limited[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertising. Not notable. Awards are the usual sort they all have. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson King[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertising. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is the 2nd time in AfD for this article. Unbelievably it seems to have survived from apathy. No sources and no claim to WP:N. Doesn't look like anything has been done with this since at least 2012. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London Creative[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertising. Not notable. Awards are the usual industry ones they all have. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete If a communications and design agency can't pitch better than this, then no article is justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

House PR[edit]

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

Advertising. Not notable despite being 121st biggest PR agency in the UK! Philafrenzy (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I was about to register "Delete," however, editor does not appear to be a COI editor so I'm going with "Neutral." If it would be possible to find broader references beyond PR Week (even if they were also trades) I think this could be a fine company stub if some of the language were de-promotionalized. BlueSalix (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. everyone agrees. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sutherland[edit]

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

Non-notable author lacking non-trivial support. References are mostly examples of his articles of one line quotes. His books are generally non-notable minor works. reddogsix (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Incorrect assertion as references are from a variety of news sources including the UK Telegraph, US regional television, four publications under two different publishing houses, and a variety of other third party sources. Some are the authors own work, and others are news sources reporting on Sutherland. Please clarify your concerns accurately. AlexanderJamesScotland —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Not sure what is incorrect about trivial coverage statement. Review of References

1 Amazon book – lacks independence.

2 Amazon book – lacks independence.

3 Publicity notice – not in-depth article

4 Publicity notice – not in-depth article

5 A couple of quotes from article subject. Trivial

6 A single quote from the article subject. Trivial

7-12 Not about the subject, just examples of subject’s video -

13 Linkedin - Primary Reference, lacks independence.

14-18 Not about the subject, just an example of subject’s work.

Again, the article lacks independent, secondary, verifiable references. reddogsix (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""Comment-""

Disgree. Articles in Telegraph always require editorial review as it is a reputable news publication. Book listings are not Amazon books, they are via reputable publishing companies. Amazon listings reflect that. Neither of the so-called publicity notices are that. They are independent news coverage of a business announcement. Quotes of Sutherland in news articles are designed to give a referenced example of his work as a spokesperson. He was the spokesperson for controversial organizations for more than 10 years, certainly not trivial. Videos are to give examples of his regular appearance in regional media representing Scottish and British interests in the US. Agree that awards listings should be removed, as it is on a page created by the subject. Published news articles by the subject are included to show that a major news outlet has verified his status and publishes his work. AlexanderJamesScotland —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What you have outlined above amounts to trivial coverage. Just because something requires and gets editorial review does not mean the coverage is of substance. A listing in Amazon is just that and is not about the subject - there are many authors that are listed in Amazon that are no considered as notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Your comment, "He was the spokesperson for controversial organizations for more than 10 years, certainly not trivial" does not demonstrate his notability per Wikipedia guidelines - if you believe so, cite the specific guideline. Regular appearance is not a demonstration of notability - notability is not a measure of popularity, but rather of support for Wikipedia guidelines. Find an in-depth article about the subject and I will be convinced otherwise. Nothing there is in-depth. reddogsix (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost none of the sources are independent. They are in some way connected to Sutherland, and thus don't show independent notability. Sutherland writes for the Telegraph, simply being a writer is not notable. Sutherland publishes books, simply publishing books is not notable. Notability is when someone receives attention from independent sources. For example, a New York Times book review, or an interview in the LA Times or BBC, etc.. coverage without a connection to the subject. See WP:NOTE for more information on how notability works at Wikipedia. -- GreenC 17:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""Comment"" GreenC. Thanks for the information on notability. After review, I agree with the current assessment and I will be deleting the page. AlexanderJamesScotland —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ingerslevsgade[edit]

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

There is no explanation why this street is important. No reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page actually does articulate the most evident argument for notability, such as it is: this street (more particularly the stretch next to DGI-byen, near the Copenhagen Central Station) serves as Copenhagen's intercity bus stop, since there is no built intercity bus terminal. This is mentioned in numerous travel guides e.g. [40][41] and on the official Danish travel website [42]. If there actually were some kind of bus terminal, however humble, I suspect it would be easy to argue for an article. But in the absence of a building, I'm not quite sure. Wikitravel has a concise mention as well [43]], and perhaps that's where this belongs. I'll be interested to hear from Danish-reading editors as to whether there are better sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given its significance as Copenhagen's international bus terminal, I'm inclining towards keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Just a street. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How do we trust any of what is said about this street. There are no references. Are there mentions in numerous bus company websites? This could be about any street. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is incorrect; examples of references are cited above. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no friggin' references in the article. Fix it if you want, but don't lecture me!!!! Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No need for an attitude like that. A quick look at Google Streetview will confirm that it's a major international bus stop. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you all just want to whine and complain, or does anybody want to improve the article and add valid references? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody is whining and complaining. If your attitude problem continues, I would suggest that you may find yourself being blocked for incivility. You can suggest things without being rude. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Now you threaten me for pointing out that nobody is doing anything to properly fix the article. What have you done except complain about my comments? It still looks like some unverified trivia about a minor street. If somebody could fix, it I would back it. In similar circumstances, if I supported an article, I would take steps to add valid references. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Please note that at AfD we review a topic's potential to support an article, not the current state of the article. Nevertheless, in hopes of defusing this particular disagreement I added a reference to VisitDenmark, the official Danish travel portal. The same info is contained in many travel guides. I can think of other reasons not to keep this as a separate page (for example, it might be sensible to merge this content into Transport in Copenhagen), but verifiability is not a problem. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Now we're working together, but is this really only about the curbside bus terminal, rather than the rest of the street? Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The bus stop is the main reason this street is notable (if it is), but I've also added mention of the Dybbølsbro S-train station, which is about a 1 km walk down this street from the buses) and if we do decide to keep the article, Commons has several photos that could be added to the page: commons:File:Ingerslevsgade.jpg; commons:File:Ingerslevsgade 2.JPG; commons:File:Kbenhavn--kopenhagen-dsb-s-bahn-658703.jpg --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Since I haven't yet formally !voted here, I'll note for the record that I'm now disposed to let this article stay, since the street does have a small but real significance to Copenhagen and its visitors, and we now have sources and a bit of additional content. Also, I note for the record that I incorporated a bit of content from this page at Transport in Copenhagen, as noted in my edit summary there [44]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updatum[edit]

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

Advertising. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Guardian, Google) turn up no evidence that this firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visiongain[edit]

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

Advertising. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find various press pieces playing back reports by the firm but nothing indicating that the firm itself meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need for Speed Most Wanted Series[edit]

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of two articles. An unnecessary article regardless as two games hardly constitute a 'series'. The disambiguation page Need for Speed: Most Wanted is more than sufficient. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary WP:CFORK that doesn't warrant a split from the main articles or the series overview. Those are two different games in that sense and merging them because the name is the same is pretty much WP:SYNTH. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminas[edit]

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

Advertising. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lack of independent sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GfK NOP[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lack of independent sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete with a vengeance as per all previous BlueSalix (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Highbeam search turns up announcement PR coverage but nothing that indicates WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GfK, the parent company, or just redirect as I'm not sure there's much in this article that's not in that one and that's worth keeping. There are a couple of dozen articles with links to GfK NOP, and I see no reason to turn those links into redlinks when there's a perfectly reasonable target. Qwfp (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet WP:CORP and it lacks WP:RS. Mkdw ^talk 23:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis & Turnbull[edit]

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

Looks like disguised advertising for their software products. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Just another accountant. I don't see the "notable in respect of its pioneering usage of online accountancy" aspect as significant or credibly sourced. This claim might be enough, but they were neither significant enough, nor early enough (online accountancy was established before this firm was even formed) to rely on it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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