Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 January 27 January >

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Shoja Noori[edit]

Alireza Shoja Noori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hamed Shojanoori has requested deletion on behalf of the subject. (See OTRS Ticket 2014010510004833) Further, the article fails the notability standard as applied to biographies of living persons. It has been tagged with notability concerns since February, 2010. Geoff Who, me? 01:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 10 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:15, 18 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, Northamerica1000(talk) 23:51, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Hollywood[edit]

Stacey Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Came across this due to creator's continued uploading of copyvios on the Commons. I've not followed en.wiki for some time, but this appears to be a non-notable person. Links are to the person's personal social media sites. A quick Google search suggests s/he was in an obscure documentary in 1999, but all coverage seems to be about the documentary itself, not about this person. Note also that the article's creator removed a PROD. Эlcobbola talk 22:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am finding where the documentary would likely merit an article. If I can find more, I'll try to create the article and then we can just redirect this article to that if there's no coverage for Hollywood herself. I'm not finding much that isn't related to the documentary, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Creature (documentary). I ran into some trouble with sourcing because most of the reviews were pre-Internet, but I found enough to assert notability. Hollywood's coverage (in RS, anyway) seems to mostly center upon that film, so a redirect there would be appropriate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:42, 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have done some more work to research this article and the subject. While it's true that most information in this article comes from reviews of the award nominated documentary that featured the subject of this article, there are also documented vinyl records and a CD compilation featuring the subject, as well an IMDb entry in her name and numerous magazine articles (which have now been cited in references) that describe the subject in more detail. This in itself, the documentary which was shown at several film festivals and released in theaters, nominated for a GLADD Media Award, shown on Netflix and broadcast on Cinemax, as well as her importance to the history of the LGBT community in West Hollywood should confer enough notoriety to warrant the article and prevent deletion. Goodmitzvah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Recently added references to the article now assert notoriety, film credit, fan base in Los Angeles and recording artist credit credits for WP:ENT. Goodmitzvah (talk) 08:57, 20 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, Northamerica1000(talk) 23:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Upon looking at some of the sources, I'm finding that much of them are typical database type entries on places such as AllMusic and Discogs. AM can sometimes give reviews for albums, but they did not review any of Hollywood's albums or singles. These just show that the albums existed and the existence of albums does not automatically equate to notability. We need coverage in newspapers and the like to show notability. I'm still looking through the other sources that were added, but so far the new sources just seem to confirm my earlier notion that Hollywood seems to have really only received coverage for her documentary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was hoping that some of the links added would have shown notability, but the problem here is that none of them give notability. They're either routine database type entries for her albums (which again, cannot show notability as most albums are routinely listed) or they're a routine listing for a night club that doesn't even mention Stacey Hollywood. Once I removed those, the only sources that remained were about the documentary. Even then, most of the ones on there were blog sources that we can't use to show notability and as such, I removed them. When we look at what's left, the sources are pretty much the ones that are on Creature and only really show notability for the documentary. It was about Hollywood, but she doesn't seem to have received any true coverage outside of the film. I wish that more reliable sources existed, but they don't seem to be out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Stacey Hollywood's music singles are documented on AllMusic. There has not been a general consensus reached on Wikipedia if AllMusic references are not valid as references and they are still used in many articles as references. The Arena nightclub reference that was removed was to reference the size of the club where she hosted, being one of the largest in Los Angeles. Goodmitzvah (talk) 20:44, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes of Eltham[edit]

Agnes of Eltham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At best unverifiable, and possibly a hoax. This article is about an historical figure for which I cannot find any sources. The article was cleaned up by another editor removing "fake information". See this version for a version with a couple of references. The first reference is available in Google Books and a search through the entire book finds no reference to an Agnes, Eltham or Langstroth. The second book is not available online. No other books seem to mention this person. A web search turned up mentions, but all of them refer back to Wikipedia as the source, and with some skepticism. See [1], and [2]. Whpq (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Withdraw nomination - The concerns that lead me to nominate the article for deletion have been addressed. I am satisfied that this historical figure is verifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found 2 references to her, by usually reasonably reliable historical writers, Kathy Lynn Emerson and Alison Weir.

[3], on the electronic update to Kathy Lynn Emerson's 'Wives and Daughters: The Women of Sixteenth-Century England' (1984). She gives no sources.

The account is also in 'Elizabeth of York' by Alison Weir [4], I am unable to see her reference online (although Weir often doesn't give her sources). Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I guess perhaps this is not a hoax on the part of the original article writer, although it is bizarre that the person added at least one bogus reference. Based on the info above, I'm not sure that the person is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 20 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, Northamerica1000(talk) 23:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have the book by Weir--the reference is on p. 451-2 It is substantially more than a mention. there's a long paragraph, with a reference to the PRO Letters and Papers Reign of Henry VIII, vol.for 1514. though without a specific location,and she indicates there is other material as well. As Boleyn says, Weir, though often using informal references like this, is in general opinion quite reliable. I could track it down further, but I think this is good enough to let it stand for now. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The primary source should then be here, [5], but I can't find it - always the issue with Weir. Anyone else have any luck finding it? Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG, who I trust. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suspect Emerson has got her information from Weir, and Weir has not given a clear reference - I've searched for it in the vague reference Weir has given - it's not in that primary source. Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Gill[edit]

Carole Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Source links don't work. Delete. Tal Brenev (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither the article nor my searches have provided any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shows up in blogs, but there does not seem to be any coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can see this fails WP:GNG .LM2000 (talk) 03:51, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Binliang[edit]

Tan Binliang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep China League One is fully professional. There's various dicussion talking about the payrolls, and fulltime status of players in the league, and crowd sizes (average about 4,000 per game) [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Other sources indicate that League Two is not fully professional. [12] Nfitz (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources actually confirm what you're saying. The article in the Manawatu Standard focuses on one player, while one from goal.com (via FourFourTwo) focuses on a single club, while saying nothing definitive regarding the league as a whole. Transfermarkt, and Wordpress are not reliable. The article from What's on Tanjin? describes the league merely as professional, and not fully pro. The table of average attendances says nothing about professionalism whatsoever. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The articles make it clear that the line between professional and semi-pro is between League One and League Two. I searched high and low for any evidence that League One isn't fully professional, and there's nothing. I did same for League Two, and it took about 30 seconds to find stuff. The leagues own documents say similar [13] [14] - though such sources should be used with caution as per WP:ABOUTSELF. Nfitz (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football. No indication of GNG pass based on any other activities within or outside football. @Nfitz: - have a look in the deletion archive for 2013, I can't remember where it was but there was a similar discussion where sources were provided to assert China League 1 as FPL. I think there is sufficient to debate this and consider adding to the PFL list, but this is not the place to do it. Fenix down (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the discussion is here. Some sources were presented saying it was a professional league. GS said they were primary sources and I observed that there were a significant number of leagues on the FPL listing that relied entirely uon primary sources. Not sure if this is enough for FPL status and the discussion never went any further, but I think there are grounds for further talk if you want to dig into it. Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Fenix down: Isn't that discussion talking about a player that player in League 2, which I've noted elsewhere doesn't seem to be fully professional, while this Tan_Binliang is in League 1, which some of those saying Delete for that AfD said was fully professional? Nfitz (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some of the players were League 1 and some League 2. I think AlexChen's comments include liks to sources potentialy outlining the professionalism of League 1. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 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 no consensus. I would also note that the article was put on AFD less than an hour after creation which is considered to be bad form. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London Real TV[edit]

London Real TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfD - London Real TV-

Not sure why there's an AfD happening on the article I've just made. Considering it's my first article in Wikipidea, would anyone help me navigate me through this and lessen the chances it would be deleted? help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theamotimes (talk • contribs) 21:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the user nominated the article because all of the references are mostly YouTube with no significant links such as news articles. I performed a couple of quick searches in hopes to find something but didn't so I don't know if this show has received much news attention without digging further. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 11 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, buffbills7701 12:16, 18 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, Northamerica1000(talk) 23:50, 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 Result = WP:SNOW keep. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth F. Fisher[edit]

Elizabeth F. Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single source, fails to meet WP:PROF. Tal Brenev (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Subject easily meets WP:GNG through a series of accomplishments that were rare for women in her day. She taught at MIT and was the first woman sent out by an oil company to do surveying. She also has a fellowship named for her at Wellesley College. More sources have been added to the article, including her New York Times obituary. I think a quick search would have revealed her notability and suggest that the nominator review WP:BEFORE. Gobōnobō + c 04:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is clear as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. WP:PROF isn't a very good fit for academics of that time, but nevertheless she does pass #3 with the AAAS and AGS fellows. The objection of having a single source is no longer valid. And the NYT obit seals the deal. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable. Dlohcierekim 07:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Maile (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lack of sources isn't a good AfD argument (WP:MUST), this does pass WP:PROF and WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am closing this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:11, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orangey[edit]

Orangey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be entirely sourced from IMDB which isn't reliable and appears to have some significant inaccuracies. Mangoe (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Is notability achieved? We have a category "animal actors", so we seem to recognise that "cats in films" can be a notable subject. This particular cat was in, amongst others, Breakfast at Tiffany's and so would appear to meet the bar for acting notability. The rationale "delete because it's inaccurate" would seem to indicate that there are other, perhaps contradictory, sources out there other than IMDB. If so, it would be better to improve the article so as to make use of them, rather than to nominate for deletion because they exist but aren't being used. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • withdraw There seems to be adequate sourcing and demonstration of notability at this point. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 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. Mughal Civil War was also thrown in here as a drive-by nomination. No action taken on that; if you believe Mughal Civil War should also be deleted, please bring it to AfD on its own. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at Mughal Civil War; when I wrote the above, I didn't realize it had no content at all. I'm going to delete that too under WP:G8 -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sikandarabad[edit]

Battle of Sikandarabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find references to event. Grubbiv (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references mention the Battle of Sikandarabad.

One of the references (History of India, vol 2) by Mountstuart Elphinstone can be purchased as a Kindle Edition from Amazon for $3 which I have done. It does not mention the battle.

The first picture is actually of a mosque in Najibabad which is over 100km away from Sikandarabad. Not clear that it has anything to do with Sikandarabad.

The second picture is of a fort built in 1755 (a year after the battle).

Most substantive edits come from anonymous users or users whose accounts are deleted or blocked.

Also nominating for deletion Mughal Civil War which was formerly a redirect to Battle_of_Sikandarabad#Background Grubbiv (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 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 deleted by User:Yunshui per CSD G11 and CSD G12, with closing message of "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20572379-four-parts-of-the-universe". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 19:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four Parts Of The Universe[edit]

Four Parts Of The Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD - article about a novel that is self-published and has very little to none secondary coverage except a single review. The only other reference is a press release by the author or his PR agent (who also created and has extensively edited the article). Does not meet WP:NBOOKS. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I couldn't find a single reliable secondary source that covered it. Clearly fails WP:NBOOKS. Kolbasz (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've tagged it as a speedy for spam, but in case it does survive by some stroke of luck it should absolutely be deleted in the long run due to a complete lack of notability. The sole review is a blog source, which doesn't count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan French[edit]

Jordan French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's probably worth starting this nom with the note that I was significantly involved in the events that led to the ban of Wiki-PR and have talked to French more than once.

That said: there isn't substantive RS coverage that focuses on Jordan French as a person; RS coverage focuses on Wiki-PR with a few offhand mentions of French's role as CEO and essentially no coverage of him as a person. Even the businessinsider article (which is the only RS with more than very passing coverage of him as a person) is only a secondary source up to the point where the interview begins (and is then primary and doesn't count towards notability.) Thus I suggest the article be deleted as French doesn't appear to meet the GNG or other relevant notability standards. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved, too. I have a bias against French's company. WP:BLP1E and WP:1E may apply here. —rybec 00:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not in the least an advertisement for hi. There has been significant outside discussion of him and his company, and the article is appropriate. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with DGG that the article is not even remotely an advertisement. However, from the references in the article and what I could find, everything is about the scandal. There are no references about him. Looking at the refs in the article to see what they say about him, Business Insider asks if he is a lawyer and he says yes. The Daily Dot and San Francisco Business Times retrieves from LinkedIn that he is a lawyer via Vanderbuilt. Los Angles Times and Wall Street Journal say nothing about Mr. French. I tried searching for info before the scandal took place and couldn't find anything besides social media. There are no articles that have anything remotely to say *about him*. Thus, fails GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 06:26, 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 The subject of the article has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography [16] (which was being used as a reference in the article), so notability is firmly established: there is a long-standing convention that all people who have been the subject of ADB entries also meet WP:BIO. MOS violations are not grounds for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bea Miles[edit]

Bea Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What's this? A how-to on how to violate WP:MOS? Doesn't indicate notability either. Launchballer 22:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Her notability as Sydney's "iconic eccentric" (in a similar vein as Joe Gould in New York City or the Emperor Norton in San Francisco) is well-established. [17][18] Multiple sources are already given and ample more are easily found in basic searches like GBooks. She is the inspiration for at least one novel (by Kate Grenville) and a musical. I don't understand the nominator's comment about MOS, but in any event MOS violations aren't grounds to delete an article on a notable subject. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 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. "Global gun cultures" is not infeasible as a notable topic. What is needed is greater proof that this is considered a legitimate topic of research, one which the Keep voters argue may become apparent with further time put into the article. The accusation of a POV fork does not make sense to me, unless if the United States is the whole world. Shii (tock) 16:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global gun cultures[edit]

Global gun cultures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As seen HERE. This article was hastily created to take control of content that will be merged into the Gun politics in the United States from the Gun cultures in the USA article. Virtually all of the remaining content was cut and pasted from other areas of Wikipedia. The article is also edited exclusively by it's creator. This is basically a form of WP:PUSH behavior that not only creates MULTIPLE REDUNDANT CONTENT FORKS, but an article that fails notability requirements as well, since the content is already going to be merged into a larger article, and if not merged, remain where it is. (No new article is needed) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to the article is almost exclusively WP:OR, very badly cited or not cited at all. The main articles of each nation do not generally even mention any "gun culture", as an example. I am beginning to understand why some are calling it a POV fork now. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that little "Find sources" tool above is great. I wonder of anyone in the WP firearms editor community has a copy of this? Open Fire. Understanding Global Gun Cultures Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This editor follows me around and shouts "SPA" about me at everyone. Here is the latest discussion about this. Lightbreather (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lightbreather, please sign your posts. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quit it, Sue, I will block you if you continue.--v/r - TP 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment - As nom, per the above. Article info is duplicate info, content forking, and fails notability guidelines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User is nom - appears to have voted twice. Hipocrite (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overview of gun laws by nation is about LAWS. Except for a section called "Arguments" that presents POLITICAL arguments (and mostly Western/U.S. arguments) there are only three - under Pakistan, Serbia, and the U.S. - short sentences containing the word "culture." The Pakistan and Serbia sections have see-also links to Gun politics in... articles - and the U.S. section has lists "main" articles Gun laws in the United States and Gun laws in the United States by state. Drmies and others have said this elsewhere, but it bears repeating: culture, law, and politics are not interchangeable terms. Wikipedia can and should be able to present gun culture and gun law data without an emphasis on politics. Those articles - culture and law articles - should have references to politics, along with see-also links.
BTW: The Arguments section of the Overview of gun laws by nation includes duplicated material that should be of more concern to WP editors than Global gun cultures. Those political arguments should be merged or summarized or whatever is most appropriate into the appropriate article or articles. Lightbreather (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete per TFD. The gun culture of each country can be dealt with in each country's article, and if overview information is needed, that can go into the overview article. No reason to cover the same ground many places. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as long as the intent for an article is not a hoax, autobiography, attack, or vandalism, the motive for creating an article shouldn't matter. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE article is written like a soup sandwich and poorly sourced. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE or merge into Gun control. This is a POV fork attempt.Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. This article seems to have been created based on a Reuters article that is written in a way to suggest itself was based on a need to fill space on Reuters' website. But I could be wrong. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Overview of gun laws by nation page. The same info is already on that page. Also, it has more comprehensive coverage.--RAF910 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT per RAF910. Otherwise delete as a POV fork.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, based on the further discussion below, the article Culture of the United States has a section on gun culture. That section can be expanded, and when it gets big enough then a new article on US gun culture can be started. Same for other countries. That's how WP:Summary style is supposed to work. Based on the dearth of such gun culture info in Wikipedia articles about countries other than the US, the present overview article is premature and unnecessary. Moreover, it is poorly named, given that there is not really any global gun culture (i.e. a gun culture that spans the globe), but a better article title would not save this thing from being premature.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Keep, for now. Not a great article, but I don't see how this is a POV fork--it's hardly not-neutral beyond salvation. As an overview article, it could be very useful. As for the proposed redirect, there is a great difference between gun culture and gun laws/legislation (I mean, duh). That the article is supposedly badly sourced right now is not a valid reason for deletion. Gaijin42, I don't know what overview article you mean--can you enlighten us? Drmies (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies While you are correct that culture is different than laws, with the minimal amount of content here,even if it is slightly off-topic, I see no reason why that could not be included on the article about laws (since the two are often tightly interrelated) Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation. (With obviously Gun Politics in XXXX having the info for each individual country as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Gaijin--I think there's plenty of content here, and different enough from content about laws. We're having enough trouble already keeping politics and attitudes out of the more legal and historical articles, so let's not throw this into the mix. Sure, the two are related, but so are popes and saints. Or popes and Renaults. If SCOTUS saw the light and reinterpreted the 2nd amendment tomorrow (to read it the way the Founding Fathers intended! haha) we'd still have a gun culture(s) in the US, probably even more of one. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies How are popes related to French cars? (Or is there some obscure Catholic term Renault that we don't have mentioned? (Is the popemobile a Renault or something?) I see the relationship as a feedback loop. The dominant culture controls the growth, constraint, or reduction of gun laws/habits. That in turn affects the next generation of culture. With of course the standard pendulum swing common to many cultural cycles. Occasionally there are major disruptive forces in the cycle that can change things drastically in a short time (wars, mass shootings, terrorism, revolutions) but the two are very closely linked. Certainly in the case of the US I think it would be futile to talk about the politics without the culture, and visa versa, and in other countries where the law has brought ownership down to negligible levels there is not much culture to talk about. (Although your comment on the other split/merge discussion I thought was insightful, if there was enough sourced content to give detail to each sub-culture, I could see that breakout being valuable, but right now the "US gun culture" is pretty much just talking about the NRA etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you have seen I don't yet believe in the viability of the US gun culture article and have argued for it to be merged. That's not so for this article, which is viable and full of content. As for the pope, certainly you read this. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's already an article Overview of gun laws by nation and another article Number of guns per capita by country, and this one would basically be a further article about gun cultures by country. Perhaps that's too many articles. Moreover, the title of this one is confusing. There isn't any global gun culture (given that they vary by country), much less a plural number of global gun cultures. So I'd just delete this thing, and maybe move content to the other two articles, or perhaps to the respective articles about culture in each country. For the U.S., there's already a section started at Culture_of_the_United_States#Gun_culture. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no--this article isn't about laws or numbers; it's about "attitudes, feelings, values, and behavior of a society" related to guns, as I indicated in the section on the Philippines I just added (in that case, increased violence among almost all levels of society). (And it's not all "culture" like Calamity Jane...) If you want to tweak the title, go ahead--on the talk page, but of course you can't discuss after you delete it. :) Drmies (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, Drmies, wouldn't all this stuff fit nicely in the respective articles about culture in each country? I know that I added that thought late, but better late than early, I say. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if so, isn't that an argument for merging the individual articles? It doesn't remove the validity of a general article... What I foresee is a couple of individual articles, not one for every country: for a lot of countries there's simply not a lot of exciting stuff. The Netherlands has gun legislation, but hardly any gun politics and no gun culture to speak of. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which articles you're referring to when you say "merging the individual articles". Surely the article Culture of the United States should not be merged with any other article. What I'm saying is that that article (Culture of the United States) has a section on gun culture, so why not simply expand that section? If the section gets big enough, then a separate article can be started. Same for all the other countries. It seems waaaay premature for an overview article, which seems to be what you have in mind for "Global gun cultures".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per WP:SAVE, WP:PRESERVE and WP:SUMMARY, (or if all else fails, Move per WP:Drafts). The nomination appears to be defective. (Did the nominator read and comply with the relevant parts of Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations?) No consensus developed for the proposed merge mentioned. The claim that the article was "edited exclusively by it's creator" is false, the nominator was the 5th editor to make changes. (My edit) One of the objections to Gun cultures in the USA was its lack of global coverage (Template:globalize/West), which this new article can provide. The article is not a POV fork because instead of a USA-only POV, it can provide multi-national viewpoints. Culture goes beyond laws and politics. "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Gun culture is and has been a notable subject for decades. ...172.129.246.164 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are the article creator and other editors aware that they may continue to improve the article while in AfD? Since this article contains some content split from Gun cultures in the USA, the "principal editors" of that page should have been notified about this AfD (and the merge discussion). In particular, User:Ef80 exclusively edited in the section that was transferred to this article, User:Trilobitealive added the Synthesis tag to that section (among other edits), and briefly, User:Kevinp2, User:Ekabhishek, User:Hoplon, User:BillyTFried and User:AliveFreeHappy made significant contributions to that article. (Filter: 3+ edits, still active.) ...172.129.246.164 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we are all well aware that we can edit it, thank you. It's nice though not mandatory to notify editors, and I appreciate you doing it. I agree with your reasoning about the POV fork--if anything, this is a proper content fork. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless I missed something (I'm Human) I don't think anyone is calling it a POV fork. Definitely a content fork however, actually the article creates multiple forks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • At least three editors have called it a POV fork. I say it's a valid content fork, if it's to be called a fork at all. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, Drmies, I used a page search and found them. I agree with you. I don't see any POV fork at all, except possibly for the rather dubious purposes mentioned below. I also agree that as a content fork, it definitely qualifies. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rather than multiple forks, we might view it as a central hub connecting multiple spokes. Only a small part of the spoke is in the hub. ...172.129.34.141 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And improve this article as it is obviously a notable topic. BillyTFried (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - If all of the duplicate material were removed, there would be no article to speak of. Whatever remained would rightfully be merged into the main articles anyway. The entire article is just a series of content forks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the way you worded that, basically all the material in the article is duplicated elsewhere. Where exactly? Please provide links. Lightbreather (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable topic. One book uses the term its title, but that's basically a wp:primary source use. Another uses it a section heading (as singular). Can't find much else besided the Reuters blog cited as first source here [19]. Given the beeelion of books about guns and their control/culture in general, this is clearly a WP:FRINGE topic framing which doesn't needs its own WP:CFORK article because a couple of authors used/coined a new term. (None of these sources even bothers to explain exactly how they think we have [multiple] global gun cultures.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fringe" is a totally inappropriate word to use here, even if a topic could be described as fringey. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I think you misunderstand the meaning of the title. There need be no "Global gun cultures" concept in order to have an article that lists and discuss gun cultures around the globe (and functions as a guidepost to other articles). BTW, there is at least one global gun culture, and that's the proliferation of small arms; this was made pretty clear in the half a dozen books I just looked at to write a sentence or to for Global_gun_cultures#Philippines--if only to indicate that improving and expanding this article is easy. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, you seem to concede that the title (which is a non-notable/fringe framing, like I said) has nothing to do with the article's content. Please explain then how is this page suppose to be different from Overview of gun laws by nation, which seems to have the same content (summaries of other articles). It seems to me we have a bit too many "guideposts" (as you call them), whose only purpose appears to be to fork stuff for rather dubious purposes. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't concede that at all. And the page is supposed to be different since its focus is, or should be, on culture in the broader sense, not about laws--but that's not the first time this is said in this AfD. Note this edit. I still don't know what a "fringe framing" is supposed to be: it's hardly fringey to state that different cultures/countries have different gun cultures, unless you want to say that there is no such thing as a "gun culture", which strikes me as silly. And that "gun culture" as a concept is notable is borne out easily by high-quality references currently in the article. Scholars have written about many gun cultures--did you know apparently Kumasi has one? This for those with access to JSTOR: "This article is about guns and the culture of guns in Kumasi today. Much of value has now been written about armed African youth, but little of this is concerned with guns themselves, and more specifically with their history, meaning, manufacture and use." Drmies (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? So which are the global gun cultures? I can think of only one and some academics seem to agree with me [20]. There are no wiki articles about the gun cultures of the other countries. They are all called Gun politics in XXX e.g. Gun politics in Switzerland. Where does the "gun politics" redirect? Oh, wait, ... I told you that already. Once we have several long articles like the global gun culture of Switzerland (like never), I can see why an overview wiki page might be needed. But not before. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even leaving the "global" title silliness aside, you cannot really treat gun culture and gun polics as separate issues for most countries (gun culture of Switzerland goes where?), regardless how some academic might title his paper about the Kumasi. It makes no sense to wp:cfork country-level articles between the politics and the culture aspect. And if that doesn't make sense, how does a fork at higher level make sense? In the Kumasi case it may be the case that the state has very little influence (as law enforcement etc.) and perhaps it's not at all a political issue there as result of that, but such states/regions are far and few in between on the globe today. Gun culture and gun politics are intertwined in all modern/functioning states. The only exception I can think of is Hollywood gun culture which has global penetration but is not affected by politics in other countries, except maybe via censorship. (Concrete example of the latter [21].)Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you want an RS example look at "A+very+British+gun+culture", which starts by discussing the British [shot]gun culture, then gets into gun violence, and finally the resulting gun control laws. All in the space of five pages in the same section titled "A very British gun culture". Would it make any sense to chop that into two or three wiki articles all of which would have a significant part of the picture missing? Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • So you're arguing that culture and politics are basically the same thing; others here are arguing that culture and law are the same thing. I find that very strange: do we need to pull out a dictionary? Yemen has a qat culture but no qat politics. Canada and the US have very similar gun laws, but very different gun cultures, as far as I know. Same with Germany and the Netherlands. I'm getting the feeling that (besides this quibbling over the title--you're just gonna have to get over the fact that for some people "global gun cultures" means "gun cultures as found in different parts of the world"--or "gun cultures globally". English can do that) you're really just saying that you don't like articles on the culture of something, or that you simply don't understand what "culture" means.

                The destabilizing effect of guns in the Philippines, for instance, is not political, and there appears to be very little that politicians are doing about it--except arming their own bodyguards. It's not simply a legal issue, since there are laws, but a third of the weapons in the country are illegal--that is, of course it's an issue that the law could address, but we're writing legal articles on laws that exist, not on laws that could exist to solve some particular cultural problem. Again, I just don't see why anyone would deny the validity of this content, or why they would think that the real-life issue of journalists having to hire armed bodyguards could somehow be made part of the politics or the legislation of gun issues in a given country. But this is getting repetitive, and tedious. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the TERM "Global gun cultures" even notable? I cannot find any citations for it. There's a book with the term as part of the title, but this article isn't about the book. I can't see where anyone has ever used the term, so unless someone was inquiring about the book, why would anyone even look it up? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that particular problem is surmountable. it could be moved to Overview of gun cultures by country or something similar to what we did with the politics article. One would have to show there are enough countries that have WP:RSWP:V content though, otherwise its just going to be a dupe of the US (and handful of others that are sourceable) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Gaijin: that's pretty much how I feel. (The Australia and Asia sections have plenty such content, I believe.) Sue_Rangell, this is a rather short-sighted objection, especially since the matter is already discussed above. I'm disappointed you'd bring this up so late in the game. You might want to read Wikipedia:Article titles, third sentence: "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic". Drmies (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct! The title in this case is the subject...and it does not seem notable. Or am I missing something? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sue Rangell, Drmies, and Gaijin42: The subject is gun cultures, the scope is global. Remember... "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article"... or its descriptive title. Gun culture is and has been a notable subject for decades. The nomination has failed, and should be withdrawn....172.162.77.52 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failed how? I count only four votes to keep (One of them being a "keep or merge") vs. 10 or so votes to delete or merge. I have yet to see a keep vote that cites an applicable Wikipedia policy with any strength (Just my opinion, mind you). I would wager that even if I were to withdraw the nomination, someone would come up right behind me and nominate it again. So no. The nomination stands, at this point I am just waiting for the discussion to close. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is not a vote. It is the quality of reasoning, not number of people holding a position, that matters. There have been 5 editors that have given reasons to keep, and 1 redirect (plain). On the delete side, there were 2 "delete or merge", 1 redirect or delete, and the remainder delete. (Three editors made non-discussion or technical edits.) We can't count delete non-votes giving POV fork as a reason, since we agree it is not a POV fork. The subject is certainly notable, so those giving notability as a reason don't count. We can't count "hastily created" or "written like a soup sandwich" as reasons, and it is not a "fork of Gun control", and it is not WP:FRINGE. Most of the delete reasoning was based on an earlier version of the article. Since the AfD tag was placed on the article, the size has increased from 7,754 bytes (26 January 2014) to 19,997 bytes after User:Yobot removed the stub tags (6 February) from this developing article. None of the delete reasons are valid now, IMO. ...172.162.77.52 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. If the nominator fails to do it when you think it should have been done (people can be busy, so WP:AGF on this point), leave a note on the nominator's talk page to draw their attention.

— WP:DISCUSSAFD
Heavens to Betsy! This doesn't seem like a reason to delete an article that in a matter of a week Drmies and I were able to flesh out easily. I imagine people searching might type in "gun culture" or "gun cultures." The first one already redirects to "Global gun cultures," and I'm going to create the latter as a re-direct, too. I mean, we have an article in Wikipedia titled "Federal Assault Weapons Ban," and I bet most people searching for that simply type in "assault weapons ban." Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sue has made this edit - removing a link to Global gun cultures from Gun politics in the U.S. - with the edit summary: "No point in linking to an article that is about to be deleted or moved." Does she know something we here don't know? Has a decision been made about keeping or deleting this article? I see five votes to keep, seven (including Sue as the nom) to delete, and two to redirect to Overview of gun laws by nation (which is about LAWS not culture). Is there a cut-off date? And is the final decision based on counting votes? Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cutoff date is typically 7 days unless the closing admin extends it. It is not a majority vote, but the vote count is certainly taken into account. The 2 redirect votes would likely be counted as delete !votes as the end result is the same (this article would not exist). That puts it 9-5. A no consensus result is possible from that, but much would depend on how the closing admin interprets the strength of the arguments used in the !votes. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example of what I've observed over and over again as a Wikipedia editor: someone who claims there's consensus based on votes - often as small as a 2-to-1 vote. Lightbreather (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2 to 1 would generally be closed in favor of the "2" (based on my memory of past discussions) unless the !votes were flawed and discounted, but that is something that will depend greatly on the closer of the discusion. Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?#Not_unanimity
Having never gone through this process before, this action seems to fall foul of 1. Proposed deletion and 2. Deletion discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is presuming the result of this discussion, but is not really a violation of the deletion process imo. Its just a bold edit that can be reverted. It doesn't affect the outcome of this discussion either way in any case. (If someone blanked THIS article, that would likely be a violation though. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lightbreather, it was a statement of my opinion, and this discussion should be made on the page in question, not here. If your opinion differs from mine, discuss it there. That's where I made the edit, and that's where other editors will expect to see a discussion like this. Bringing it up here only muddies the issue. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Drmies original post. Look, I can see why this came across like a POV fork, but in reality it looks like it may be more of an attempt to cover a sub coulture that may not be relevant everywhere in the world...but that doesn't mean there isn't a "global" culture. This is a difficult subject for editors to cover in a truly neutral manner and it could be said that this is using an over arching source that might be seen as opinion, but in some form almost all sources have some amount of opinion...that's why we need them or we could just sources from nothing but primary documents. I don't know what the article looked like when this nomination was made but it does seem to have more than a few reliable sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this isn't a vote, obviously. If the article stays, it needs to be renamed. The title blows, to put it succinctly. 'global gun cultures' can be read to suggest that there are gun cultures that are global in nature - a gun culture that spans Peru and The Aleutian Islands and Luxembourg etc.. At minimum, simply observe the lack of articles entitled Global car culture, Global music culture, Global drug culture, Global bacteria culture (kidding), Global knife culture, Global sex culture, ad nauseum. Each of these indeed are represented by cultures found around the world, but there are no articles by such names because it's just reads poorly. Gun cultures around the world might fly, but really it should just be either a category, or List of gun cultures. Ultimately, it's just a list. The article does not describe "Global gun culture". Anastrophe (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OR fest. Completely skewed to the USA side of things, and when some of the other sections include gems like "A gun culture in the Western sense never developed in Japan.", you know the article is a WP:POINTy piece of junk. I can see a fair few sources that are unreliable blogs, are primary sources, or just seem plain irrelevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for admin to close[edit]

Discussion has ground to a halt. I count only four votes to keep (One of them being a "keep or merge") vs. 10 or so votes to delete or merge. I have yet to see a keep vote that cites an applicable Wikipedia policy with any strength (Just my opinion, mind you). The article has been improved a bit, but it is still just a mass of content forking (among other problems) If an admin could close this early as a delete or as a move, that would be great, but I am not opposed to keeping it open for the full 2 weeks if it is felt that more people may contribute ivotes. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place to request this is WP:ANRFC but doing so in a way that is intended to influence the outcome is highly frowned upon. this would not be early. AFDs are usually only for 7 days. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I thought it was two weeks. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:08, 7 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.  Sandstein  20:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qi Tianyu[edit]

Qi Tianyu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, original concern is still valid - "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." JMHamo (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of killed Euromaidan members[edit]

List of killed Euromaidan members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources at all, probably original research and doesn't meet WP:LISTN, as there are no reliable sources that would confirm assertions of notability. The author has recently removed PROD from article, and now it has to go on AfD. Alex discussion ★ 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are adding sources shortly, I see no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valizka (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agree with DDima, and with NickSt to rename to List of killed people of the Euromaidan. The list is important as it is the first ever victims in the modern Ukrainian history, and they caused more widerspread and much stronger protests in Ukraine -- thus imho it requires a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valizka (talk • contribs)
    • You don't get to !vote more than once. You can make further comments, but don't format them as if they are separate !votes by different editors. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • sorry I am relatively new to discussion rules and the first time keep vote was not there Valizka (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - clearly notable, and sources exist in abundance on the Euromaidan and Hrushevskoho St Riots articles. --Львівське (говорити) 22:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – although it may be overkill, it describes fatalities in a event that is very widely covered by news sources, especially in Ukraine. Epicgenius (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Euromaidan itself is way overgrown and in need to be offloaded as much as possible. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:26, 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A7 and salted. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip goswami[edit]

Sandip goswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources relating to this person, and most of the sources in the article are from non-reliable sources too. The page is also almost incoherent. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Incoherent" should be fixed by editing. sources are another matter, of course. DES (talk) 22:20, 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 delete.  Sandstein  20:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nature–man–spirit complex[edit]

Nature–man–spirit complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established for almost 6 years. Puffin Let's talk! 20:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term gets maybe 5 real hits in Google Books, none of which seem to cover it in any depth. This for a supposedly famous concept published in 1963. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:57, 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 delete.  Sandstein  20:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shariyaan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shariyaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references and notability not established for almost 6 years. Puffin Let's talk! 20:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's been given ample time for someone to find something to establish notability but the notability concerns haven't gotten better, and probably never will.LM2000 (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason it survived a previous AfD is because nobody voted.LM2000 (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No ref. May be a hoax.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, though without prejudice to recreating it if a source to verify the contents can be found. --Delirium (talk) 02:06, 3 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AZ Celtic Films[edit]

AZ Celtic Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established for over a year. Puffin Let's talk! 20:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lots of notability by association assertions in the article, but no sources provided. They certainly exist as a film productions services company but i can find no significant coverage about them. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, delete for lack of notability or references. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 8 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 redirect to Picture (band). Doing this as an ordinary user under WP:BB rather than as a consensus-based admin closure. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Dreamer[edit]

Diamond Dreamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established for over a year. Puffin Let's talk! 20:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Picture (band). Nothing found to justify an article here, but a potentially useful redirect. --Michig (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Four Media[edit]

Famous Four Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page without any reliable third party references. Itsalleasy (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This AfD was incorrectly formatted and untranscluded on a log page. Now fixed and listed under 26 January 2014. FunPika 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FunPika 20:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 27 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, Stifle (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional, notability not met. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:22, 9 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgewood Village, Missouri[edit]

Ridgewood Village, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such place as Ridgewood Village in Callaway County, Missouri. Does not exist. Hoax article by one-time contributor back in 2008. Amazing that this article has had 16 edits in 5+ years since creation and no one thought to verify it. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Speedy delete as a hoax. No evidence it exists. Only thing close I could find is a Ridgewood Village Apartments in a different county. There's no The Layman's Guide to Missouri Communities or an R.P. Press. Note: Callaway County, Missouri#Townships and other incorporated areas needs to have this place expunged as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Callaway County doesn't even have seven miles of US 63 frontage, and all of it is rural in character; this plain doesn't exist. Nate • (chatter) 22:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clarityfiend. Completely unverifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needless to say it isn't notable.LM2000 (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this may be, from what I could find on Google, a REIT or something like that, but not an actual town or premises. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 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 redirect to TransTales Entertainment. It's not clear that the redirect is really warranted, but I have a pretty low bar for redirects -- RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Princess[edit]

The Secret Princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NF as a non-notable unreleased film. It has contained WP:COPYVIOs since it was created. See the page history for what's been done so far (PROD with endorsement, G12, redirect, recreate...) This could just as easily be listed at WP:CP but since there are notability issues as well I think the article should be deleted in its entirety. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to TransTales Entertainment. I remember redirecting this to TTE's article, but it looks like that was reverted. Given the complete lack of coverage by any reliable source (other than one press release reprinting), I think it's highly unlikely that this film will gain enough coverage to merit an article. I have to say that I'm still unsure as to whether or not there's enough notability for TTE to merit an article, as they've only received a very small amount of coverage for their films, despite the claim that one of the movies won an award. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far the sources you've brought up in either article have been posted in reliable sources or are press releases. We need more than that to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is on IMDB, on Variety on several websites, google the title "The Secret Princess by Transtales" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrexMafia (talk • contribs) 06:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDb doesn't count towards notability and the Variety article counts as one source. If they write multiple articles about the movie or company then that's different, but the reposting of one article on various different websites does not count as multiple sources. Googling the film brings up a lot of press releases and links on places that we cannot use as a reliable source. There just isn't enough coverage out there to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not see the significant coverage in multiple ndependent reliable sources that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 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 merge to List of eponymously named diseases. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autoeponym[edit]

Autoeponym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable word/concept; WP:ONESOURCE issues (effectively). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge relevant content into List of eponymously named diseases etc; the concept of "autoeponym" is original coinage and essentially fails WP:V. Schamroth's sign/Leo Schamroth is not listed (and should have been). JFW | T@lk 19:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    H. W. Fowler I think calls them "nonce words" i.e. words that are only ever used once and essentially made up on the spot. Not that it matters but I have had that in the back of my head for days now trying to remember what they are called.... 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
Merge per Jfdwolff, WP:ONESOURCE per nom. The second sentence of the lede makes nonsense of the first, since it states that the possessive form should be used in cases where the nominee is the patient and not the doctor, which by definition is not "autoeponymous", and the specific example (Lou Gehrig's disease) was not so named by him. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Terris[edit]

Johnny Terris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this guy openly told me he wrote his own article, deleted 2/3 of it after i made fun of it for being full of slybrags, and is totally unsourced. he's not a notable person Corpselord420 (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- I believe this nomination is result of jealousy or something. The subject does fail on WP:NACTOR but he is a writer, a photographer and model too. This article survived on Wikipedia for 9 years with long edit history, I would have voted for delete but nominator failed to make valid case for deletion. Search results do not emit much info either. Hitro talk 19:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that he is also a writer, a photographer and a model, what the article as written fails to do is to properly source that he's notable for any of it (the mere fact that a person exists is not enough to qualify them for a Wikipedia article.) And the amount of time that an article has existed does not create an exemption from Wikipedia's content policies; lots of stuff that shouldn't be here flies under the radar because people aren't noticing it enough, so an article that fails as written to meet the rules can be considered for deletion whether it's been here for a minute, an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade or a century. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you didnt get my point. I am well aware of the policies of inclusion at WIki. Of course, age of the article is no reason for inclusion. What I meant was that there may be very thin possibility of retrieving useful information from revision history. I have nominated two articles few days back for deletion who are more than 2 years old with no solid revision history.Current size of the article is 2475 bytes but it used to over 5000 bytes 3 years back. Article should be definitely deleted in its current state. Revision history shouldn't be ignored at all. Hitro talk 13:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the record I have randomly spotchecked about a dozen past versions in the article's edit history, and even at its absolute longest there's never been the first indication of a reliable source — the only statement in the entire article that's ever had a reference tag after it at all was a simple assertion of his ethnic ancestry, which was sourced to a profile on modelmayhem.com (i.e. a primary source supporting a statement that had no bearing either way on his notability or lack thereof.) So no, there's nothing in the edit history that could be readded to salvage this as a keepable article. Bearcat (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 19:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No properly sourced indication of notability, and the fact that he wrote the article himself triggers conflict of interest issues. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For me, the question of who started this article is a non-issue. What is a problem is the lack of any evidence of independent reliable sources (news articles, critical commentary, or anything else) discussing the subject, his oeuvre of underground films, or any other parts of his creative career. I couldn't find anything. I will be happy to reconsider my opinion if any suitable sources are identified. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, COI admittedly isn't in and of itself a reason to delete an article; a COI article can be kept if reliable sources and a legitimate claim of notability are available to salvage it with. But if those things aren't present or available, then COI does come into play as an additional reason why the article isn't keepable. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability demonstrated - this is a sea of red links and no sourcing provided for any of it. Tvoz/talk 08:16, 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 Keep. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH as per Bearian Deville (Talk) 02:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bregal Sagemount[edit]

Bregal Sagemount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing but press releases. accepted at AfC nevertheless. As a very general guide, private equity firms with assets of less than $1 billion are very unlikely to be notable--not that this is a guideline precisely, but most AfD discussions have ended up that way. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the comments on the Bregal Sagemount article. Always happy to be working to make this a better article and would appreciate some feedback on how to do so. A few things to highlight:

  • The reviewer mentions that there are nothing but press releases in the article; I'm not sure where this comes from, as the only references (save one link to the Bregal Sagemount website) are to articles written in the reputable financial press (for example, Bloomberg). No press releases included.
  • The other comment relates to the size of the fund, with $1 billion being a guideline for whether or not a fund is notable. I'm not sure how this guideline has developed over time or how it originated, but I do think it is somewhat odd. Many firms that do not raise $1 billion+ funds would be considered notable to those familiar with the industry. To take an extreme example, Sequoia Capital, one of the worlds most well-known private equity / venture capital firms, only raised a $1 billion+ fund in 2009 after investing across several smaller funds for years in companies such as Apple, Google, Cisco, Zappos, and PayPal.

Thanks much!

Michaelkosty (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg references says only that Yoon left his previous position. It does not even mention this company. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:16, 27 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, Stifle (talk) 17:58, 26 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards weak keep is not an example of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? The $1 billion cutoff seems completely arbitrary. If this fund is allocated and they add a second of equal size (meeting the $1 billion threshold) will the firm then be deemed notable? Listen, it's a new firm led by significant people in the industry and it's making some waves. $500 million isn't chump change and it will be interesting to see how their investments pan out (or don't). I think the subject is worth including and will almost certainly become more notable as there are additional developments and coverage of their investments and funding operations. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Candleabracadabra. According to WP:CORPDEPTH, I think it passes notability. The 1/5 Billion line is not set in stone, to garble my metaphors. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 11 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 redirect to Buzău#Education and culture. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Ciprian Theatre[edit]

George Ciprian Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Does not have Romanian article. Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I pondered on creating this article on ro.wp and also here, but decided against it. It is simply too small a theater and the only marginal references on it can be found in excusively local press. It is however mentioned in the "Education and culture" section of the Buzău article (and I think I can add a ref to that), but that, I think, is the extent of verifiable encyclopedic information on this subject. Maybe we could redirect.- Andrei (talk) 10:09, 15 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:30, 18 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, Stifle (talk) 17:58, 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 List of power stations in Iran. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ardeh Dam[edit]

Ardeh Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Micro-scale dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability since April 2010; however, no improvements were made to establish its notability. No English search results, except different wikies based on this page. There may be more deep coverage in Farsi. Beagel (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a hydroelectric generation plant and dam, notability can be assumed; and sources are very likley to be found in Farsi. Systemic bias may be an issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not every hydroplant and dam is notable, particularly in the case of micro- and small hydro projects. You can't just asume a notability of every micro- and small scale project. If there are sources satisfying WP:GNG, the article should be kept. Otherwise, it should be deleted. During almost four years nobody has provided any reliable third party source providing a significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail. Just mentioning the name of the dam by sources is not enough for WP:GNG. As for Systemic bias, it may be an issue, of course, but unlikely. During the last four years, members of WP:DAMS, particularly user:NortyNort has expanded all similar stubs created by the same author. Remained only stubs where no sources available. Beagel (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Given the growth trend for renewable energy plants, notability cannot be simply assumed, or else things would quickly get out of hand. Johnfos (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of power stations in Iran or just delete. I did a similar AfDthree years ago on a plethora of planned dams in Iran. Hard to find information on these and it is a very small hydroelectric plant. I have worked on many of these articles and expanded what I could. If we don't delete or redirect it will be four more years!... of stub status...--NortyNort (Holla) 14:10, 25 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, Stifle (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other merge target would be the town it is adjacent to. I'd support that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hathaway (publisher)[edit]

Richard Hathaway (publisher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 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, Stifle (talk) 17:52, 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 Vital (Anberlin album). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Starter[edit]

Self-Starter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NSONG Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 19 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, Stifle (talk) 17:48, 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 Vital (Anberlin album). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Anyone[edit]

Someone Anyone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NSONG Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 19 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, Stifle (talk) 17:48, 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 merge to Hünegg Castle. slakr\ talk / 09:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain railways special exhibition in the Hünegg Castel[edit]

Mountain railways special exhibition in the Hünegg Castel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model railroad exhibition. Prod removed by a single purpose account. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not-notable model railroad exhibition? This is your view user WikiDan61! Have you seen this exhibition? Are you model railroaders? Prod removed by a single purpose account? Where is the problem?--Feliz Nuevo (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC) — Feliz Nuevo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please comment on the argument, not the arguer. Also, remember that "I like it" is not a good reason to keep an article. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:Feliz Nuevo has no edits outside of the scope of this discussion. --Kinu t/c 17:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability isn't conferred by the impressiveness of the exhibition, but by signficant coverage in reliable sources. The brochure of the exhibition, or its website, or the website of the castle (which, by the way, appears to fail to mention the exhibition at all) do not count as reliable, independent sources. Find some actual sources, and the story here might change. As for my comment about "PROD removed by a single purpose account", that refers to the fact that new users who register solely for the purpose of commenting on deletion processes generally raise red flags, due to their unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to the possibility that such accounts are created maliciously to subvert the deletion process. That is not the only reason such accounts are created, but it does become a factor in the deletion decision process. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiDan61 your comment is nonsense! What is your contribution to this article?--Feliz Nuevo (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My contribution is to have evaluated it as not meriting inclusion. With no reliable sources to draw on, what other contributions can I make? And please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Surprisingly enough, the topic technically passes the notability threshold. The exhibition received coverage in national Swiss media, including Swiss television ([23]) and the NZZ newspaper ([24]). However, technical notability aside, this is a temporary exhibition about a niche topic in a small country, and of exceedingly limited interest to everybody but a very few people. A mention in the article Hünegg Castle is quite enough; Wikipedia is not an events guide. What's more, the article is very incompetently written (it reads like a machine translation) and would need a complete rewrite. It doesn't look like any of the editors of the article are up to the task, and I'm not going to spend an hour recreating an article about this exceedingly trivial topic.  Sandstein  20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse my English. Very good article. Why delete? Message in the Swiss radio and television, in the NZZ, in the magazine Eisenbahn Amateur Eisenbahn Amateur. It is one of the first exhibitions this topic completely. Mountain railways are extremely important for Switzerland (tourism, transit traffic).--Schönegg (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note, while this article may or may not cross the notability bar, nominating an article for deletion 11 minutes after creation is biting the newbies. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment The Bushranger! It is deleted too much, little motivation from others by experienced... Inappropriate statements by lack of knowledge of the subject (Sandstein), rather destructive work as constructive (Feliz Nuevo)... Look as an example at the following text in NZZ Online from 24. December 2013 about Wikipedia (unfortunately in German): www.nzz.ch Die Online-Enzyklopädie soll für Autoren attraktiver werden, weswegen diese nun ihre Beiträge als Entwürfe speichern können Wikipedia lost a lot of sympathy in the recent years.--Schönegg (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Why delete? Envious? I see no reason to delete this text in comparison with many other texts in Wikipedia! Examples: Sexpo 2005 and The Toy Train Depot.--Paintitup (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Paintitup (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment The rationale behind the nomination of this article for deletion was given at the time of nomination: it does not meet the criteria for inclusion based on Wikipedia guidelines. Please provide a guideline-based argument for its retention. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Further to Paintitup's comments (which were updated after my first reply): you're right, those articles are pretty bad and should probably be deleted. But that's a different discussion. We're talking about Mountain railways special exhibition in the Hünegg Castel, and the argument that we should keep this article because other stuff exists is a weak one. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can not understand that. Then delete first the others - smile...--Paintitup (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please see WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFF. The presence or absence of other articles, or whether or not other articles should or should not be deleted, is irrelevant to whether or not this article should be deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • @The Bushranger is that all you can think to do this? I find your comments on this page a little crazy. Do you have a problem with the Switzerland? @The Bushranger and @WikiDan61: Why do you speak only by deleting the text her, and why you speak not by a transfer to the Hünegg Castle? Why do you not change the guidelines? Where is it written that guidelines kept must be strict?--Paintitup (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paint -- this is not the venue to discuss changing the notability standards by which Wikipedia editors evaluate articles. If you wish tilt at that windmill, you should open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability. You wouldn't be the first, and likely you wouldn't be the last. As for a transfer of the text to the article about Hünegg Castle, there is already a mention of the exhibit at that article. Based on the scant coverage available for the event, I think that mention is sufficient: any expansion would have to rely on the unreliable primary sources on which the present article is based. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paint: Which person do you think??? Based on the scant coverage available for the event... What a nonsense you WikiDan61!--Paintitup (talk) 20:42, 24 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, Stifle (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not only boys. Girls also! And now train wrecks! Objects of cultural value! Smile. To move the text to the Castle Hünegg is imaginable. However, this should make those no want independent articlebecause of the crazy paragraphs. Don't think this is not really clever. This can end like in en monster article. As example: Trolleybus (German). @Andrew: When Boys always want to stage train wrecks with their model railways do not make anything more stupid. Hang about, to fume cigar form Cuba, write article in Wikipedia…--Paintitup (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as appropriate to Hünegg Castle as indicated above. There is some discussion in WP:RS, although I would say that only a few of the included sources appear reliable and useful for determining notability. However, most of it appears to be WP:ROUTINE coverage. As it was a temporary exhibition, I do not see a level of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to warrant a standalone article. --Kinu t/c 17:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I will change in the next few hours after my proposal and the positive remarks of Andrew and Kinu. Preview: Test Hünegg Castel with Mountain railways special exhibition in the Hünegg Castel and Mountain railways special exhibition in the Hünegg Castel redirect to Hünegg Castle.Paintitup —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are changed. See also Hünegg Castle and Mountain railways special exhibition in the Hünegg Castel (redirect). Now I look for further pictures and information. Please be patient. Have a nice weekend.--Paintitup (talk) 19:44, 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) 01:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Walsh (ten-pin bowler)[edit]

Jason Walsh (ten-pin bowler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sportsman. Fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 19 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, Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does ranking matter in this sport? Bearian (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A third- or fourth-place finish at *one* major tournament in what is certainly a minor sport is not enough to satisfy the GNG. IgnorantArmies 14:40, 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 redirect to Blood on the Dance Floor (duo). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Start a Riot[edit]

Let's Start a Riot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Nothing at Billboard.com or AllMusic to support the notability of this album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 1 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, —Darkwind (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Album Source Sorry if this is wrong and everything. But it's not on All Music but it is on [no idea how to comment on this but http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Blood-on-the-Dance-Floor/20576/ Sputnikmusic] which is usually very reliable. LaimWMcKenzie (talk) 17:03, 15 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, Stifle (talk) 17:41, 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Piper[edit]

Henry Piper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems to be relying on the connection with Henry Piper's much more notable grandparents. This seems to be the only claim of importance and I can't see anything more substantial online. People don't inherit notability. The sources presented here amount to an interview with a video production company, an 18 page gallery publication (authored by the Piper family) and a brief mention of one of his works hanging on someone's wall, in a Telegraph article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. PROD was declined by another editor. Sionk (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I have added more references and re-arranged the article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the expanded version has almost no information about the artist, and there is nothing in the little information given to show that he meets the standard for WP:CREATIVE. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:ARTIST (work in permanent collections of major museums, reviews in national newspapers, etc) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 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 merge to Hacker Time. If a more appropriate merge target can be located, that would be a reasonable alternative to the suggested target -- RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the above, the key point of the consensus was that the subject is not sufficiently notable to require a stand-alone article. A better way to state things would have been, Merge any appropriate content into Hacker Time and redirect there. If it turns out that there really isn't anything worth merging (as determined by an editor who is familiar with the subject area), then just turning this into a redirect would certainly meet the spirit of the consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek McGee[edit]

Derek McGee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't tell whether this is an actual real life person or some fictional character thing, and regardless there aren't any decent references. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like an obscure puppet from a BBC TV show, but I'm not quite sure. I can't find any reliable sources about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge - on first glance, with a dob and details of a family, I thought it was a typo and supposed to say "puppeteer", not puppet -so it needs at the very least rewriting for clarity. From what I can gather from a bit of googling, its a puppet character used on the children's CBBC channel. However, it seems to be one of the background/extra characters only popping up now and again. I doubt it is notable enough for an article of its own, and I may be difficult to find reliable sources - all I can find is passing mentions.
However, there may be an argument for the article to be merged with the main TV show's article: Hacker Time; or with the article of his puppeteer (if it can be found out who they are, and if they have an article). This would echo another of that TV's show's puppets, Dodge T. Dog, who has a section on his puppeteer's article. --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:17, 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.  Sandstein  20:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mizar chess engine[edit]

Mizar chess engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability, no independent sources. According to CCRL,[25] Mizar is only the 362nd strongest chess engine. GregorB (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - chess software of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 21:19, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Forster (geneticist)[edit]

Peter Forster (geneticist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly promotional than indication of importance of subject. Itsalleasy (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for lack of a valid deletion rationale. The nominator's "promotional" nomination is a classic argument without an argument: here it appears only to mean that we have an article that mentions the accomplishments of its subject; by referring to the motivation for the article and not to its content it is an ad-hominem argument and vioaltes WP:AGF; and it fails to refer to WP:PROF or any other notability guideline. In any case the subject clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited pubs with the top one being cited 3500+ times on Google scholar) and #C3 (member Leopoldina).—David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 at least. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof and carry out WP:Before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Nom is taking these things too easy... Clear pass of WP:PROF. Article needs cleanup to comply with WP:MOSBIO and to move the references inline (looks like it has been translated from the German WP, where they do referencing a bit differently from here). --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Definitely meets the standards of WP:Prof#C1 and clearly notability in field has been established. BerkeleyLaw1979  00:42, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Ragsdale[edit]

Heather Ragsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Original concern is still valid - "Non notable footballer who has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior I international football and so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication lf any additional significant coverage to pass GNG." JMHamo (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football. No indication of GNG pass based on any other activities within or outside football. Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented her country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as she hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz (talk) 21:02, 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 redirect to Lookout Air Raids. This solution is preferred to deletion since it keeps the edit history intact.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okuda Shoji[edit]

Okuda Shoji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has had no sources since 2007. A search for sources finds passing mention in articles on the air raid ([26], [27], [28], etc.), but none provide more than passing mention. The Japanese Wiki article on the raid doesn't even mention his full name, and other searches in Japanese fail to come up with his full name in kanji. The information in this article is basically given in The Lookout Air Raid article, so this article is unnecessary. Fails especially the "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG. They only criterion in WP:SOLDIER it might possibly pass is number 6, but no sources indicate how important he was to the mission. Michitaro (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sourcing to verify any of the claims, and notability has not been demonstrated. --DAJF (talk) 02:18, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milutin Dostanić[edit]

Milutin Dostanić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a PROD but I don't think it's appropriate for PROD. The information seems mostly reliable. WP:BEFORE requires that certain things are checked, and a better job can be done with citation counts, etc. An obituary somewhere would be nice. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-PS remember that Serbian sources are OK too. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per the prod, which I see no reason to have removed.--Jac16888 Talk 16:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching for the author's publications in Google scholar (both under Dostanic and Достанић) did not turn up enough citations to indicate a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and there is no indication that he passes any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you check the deletion log you'll see that a previous version had been prodded and deleted in 2011 with a rationale "MathSciNet shows a large number of publications, but very little citability. Similarly little citability in GScholar and GBooks. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF on other grounds either." This has apparently not changed. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Dixon[edit]

Keith Dixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC; article I suspect is probably promotional. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — The subject clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO, the one reliable source in the article is an interview with one of his collaborators that does not mention him. STATic message me! 19:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant 3rd-party reliable sources to establish WP:BAND notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the article with the examiner? That's not a credible 3rd party source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShopArt (talk • contribs) 01:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 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 merge to Aspen Education Group. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Mountain School[edit]

Stone Mountain School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not only is Stone Mountain School closed, it was so small, it it not consider noteable Rileychilds (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Merge Maybe it should be merged with Aspen Education Group - Rileychilds (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We could justify an article: it is a sedondary school, and small size it not necessarily relevant. But considering the particular nature of the school, it probably would do better to merge it into the article on the company, which is a specialist in such schools. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep  Notability does not change when a school closes.  Nor do references go away when they become dead links.  Where is the reference that shows that the school is closed?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  I've taken down my !vote since I failed to notice that the nominator also made a Merge !vote and that there is no argument for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:59, 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) 01:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IXcoin[edit]

IXcoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Electronic currency article (another bitcoin clone) of unclear notability, lacking independent references to establish notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Declined prod. Dialectric (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and WP:FAILN.Blue Riband► 13:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it is not really a large article, either. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 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.

Lyndsey Turner (director)[edit]

The result of this discussion was speedy delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Mall in Columbia. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 The Mall in Columbia shooting[edit]

Do NOT delete this. This is an important event. It has specific relevance to the pattern of unexpected violence and mass murder in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyPuma (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do NOT delete this. This is an important event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.131.132 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please do not delete this. I agree that this ia an important date in history. We need to be able to categorize all mass shootings to better understand them. These shootings affect other communities with a ripple effect and we may want to extrapolate backwards, too. Merlinaut (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

2014 The Mall in Columbia shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, just because it is mentioned in RS doesnt make it notable for its own article. Every shooting in the world (or the usa) doesnt warrant its own page. This article has about 6 sentences and not much scope for anything else. Neither is there any lasting notability that it causes some change (as in gun laws, etc). Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft to give time for an informed view of whether the event has enduring significance. See Wikipedia:Drafts. Thincat (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unfortunately shootings like this are no longer a rare incident in the US. And this one has not recieved alot of attention either.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete - the event is significant to The Mall at Columbia, and the information on the shooting should probably stay there. There isn't enough for a standalone yet, though, and no reason to expect there will be. I disagree that it hasn't gotten a lot of attention, though. It was front-page on The Washington Post almost all of yesterday. Reinana kyuu (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though I'm an inclusionist, so I may be biased. Obviously this isn't something on the scale of the Boston bombings or the Westgate mall attack, but it's an act of violence that went viral in the media, receiving significant attention. There will probably be discussions on what could have been done to prevent it, analysis of police response, politicians weighing in, etc., and it might be useful to have a distinct article to organize all that. G0T0 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; The Mall in Columbia article is stub-sized as it is, so this information will fit well into the existing parent article. (I share the same sadness of other editors that these kinds of violent acts are becoming more and more common.) WikiRedactor (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete - The event is significant to The Mall in Columbia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Mall in Columbia. Shooting can be covered in subsection of that article. Dough4872 19:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Corn cheese (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently there is a one line sentence in the article that is fine as it stands. I moved the shooting to the "History" section in the mall's article as it distracts from the mall's overall history (WP:NPOV). The main focus of the The Mall in Columbia article should be the mall its-self and not the shooting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one said anything about making the main focus of the article the shooting, but it's certainly noteworthy enough to the subject to deserve more than one sentence. I can understand placing it within History, but it should be set off a bit in its own compartment of that at the least. Reinana kyuu (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as standalone article; This shooting: 1. Has received much media coverage; 2. Involved multiple vics (two shot dead, one shot and wounded, and four hurt in the aftermath); and 3. Was an interracial multiple murder, which may have been racially motivated.
Of course, the reasons I gave for keep are the very ones that motivated someone to go AFD. We must try and suppress, or at the least, distort all murders committed by blacks, mustn’t we? If the shooter had been white, and especially, if a white had murdered two blacks, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.24.90.190.96 (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTNEWS - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
dunno about the deep insecurity complex. no one knows or cares about the raceLihaas (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Folklore1 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Another day, another shooting in the US, nothing notable here. WWGB (talk) 17:36, 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. postdlf (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles related to negative energy[edit]

List of articles related to negative energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure what the subject of this article is. In physics (which I have some knowledge of) potential energy can be negative (for example, potential energy of the Coulomb repulsion is negative), and, for example, the total energies of bound states of an electron in a hydrogen atom are negative, and nobody makes any fuzz about it. The kinetic energy is always positive, though it is sometimes convenient to count it from some level, like in solids, and operate with negative energies. There is no fuzz about this either, and there is no room for a separate article on this subject. Concerning esoterics, I am not an expert, but I am deeply concerned with the fact that the article has no material and no sources. Finally, it is not even an article but a list — a list of Wikipedia articles. It just can not be in the main namespace in this form. Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is arguably a indiscriminate collection of information loosely tied together through original research. Even if the article were cleaned up, it seems doubtful that it would satisfy WP:LISTN. Maybe there's hope that it could be salvaged to be an index of physics articles? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands as WP:Original research. The list is trying to combine anti-matter and exotic solutions to known physics, with science fiction, and religious ideas and beliefs. I have no objection to recreation of separate articles, e.g. negative energy in mystical and religious beliefs, but these are in no way related to e.g. Hawking radiation or the Dirac Sea. Similarly negative energy in science fiction usually has very little to do with current religious ideas, and known physics.Martin451 18:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the entire list easily is WP:OR. In addition, even if the list somehow was not OR, the topic is simply not worth having a list about. Seriously, I can't think of a time when it would be necessary to look this up. Maybe this has some merit as a category, but certainly not as a list. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a useful grouping and somewhat OR in the sense that it's too vague. There is no Category:Negative energy and negative energy is currently a redirect to negative mass, which discusses a much narrower concept. Granted, negative energy might be better turned into a dab, because I'm sure there are humorist uses along the lines of [29] (well, that's about "negative waves", but you get the idea) plus new and old religions who might take that idea seriously. But I'm sure there aren't 40+ meanings to "negative energy" as this list/dab seems to suggest. I've picked up one of the articles listed at random: Melanin theory; it doesn't contain the word "negative" at all, so miffed how it might involve negative energy (and what definition thereof it might use). I can understand why Feng shui is listed though ("negative energy" understood/defined as "negative Qi" there). Energy (esotericism) is a separate article from energy though, and there's a large Energy (disambiguation). The issue is that you can paste "negative" in front of many non-physical-science uses for "energy" and they'd make the same amount of [non-]sense as before, so I'm not sure it makes sense to have all such covered in a list/dab... What would make some sense is a section about "negative energy" in Energy (esotericism) to cover that kind of stuff and a redirect to that section along the lines negative energy (esotericism), which could be hatted at negative mass as "negative energy redirects here; for other uses see negative energy (esotericism)". Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:20, 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) 00:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Partridge[edit]

Adam Partridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability The BBC ref is just to their posting of his bio as a contributor, and tho reliable for the facts of his life, does not show notability . The others are routine press releases.

Accepted from AfC nonetheless DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Neither the subject's business career nor his appearances as a sideman on daytime TV antique shows demonstrate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 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, Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 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 Delete. This is a mixture of a WP:SNOW closure, a speedy deletion as an unambiguous hoax, and a speedy deletion as a page created by a block-evading editor. (Having looked at some deleted articles, I can say with total confidence that his is another Katrina Villegas sockpuppet.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xyriel Villatez[edit]

Xyriel Villatez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed by author, who may have a COI. Although she has had a number of roles, none of them are major, and combined with a lack of reliable coverage, I don't think she's notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is a Katrina sock, Katrina seems really desperate to keep some version of this up. Dlohcierekim 07:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would say that it was an autobiography, but she's only 11 years old; thus, it's probably written by her agent, which is arguably even worse. Regardless, she seems to lack lacks notability, though I guess English-language sources might be difficult to come by. In that case, the article can be recreated with native-language sources that properly demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 10:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 10:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likely an agent spamming his client. Safiel (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I am not sure whether she fails at WP:ENT. I have neutral stand. Delete votes should have some solid reasons. Hitro talk 19:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As well they should. However, it is a bit more difficult to establish notability with a child actress who is relatively obscure in the English speaking world. I see plenty of credits listed and awards won. But are those credits actually notable roles and are the awards actually notable awards. At the moment, I will retain my delete vote on the basis of failing WP:ENT and WP:GNG as well as being WP:COI. I am willing to change if somebody demonstrates notability. Safiel (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. The "official website" doesn't exist. The twitter and facebook accounts don't exist. The IMDB page links to a guy named Randy Burt. The first 7 references are all non-existent links. The reference claiming her as a Yahoo child star of the year winner actually specifies Xyriel Manabat as the winner of the award (much of the content from this article seems to be copied from there as well). The only non-wikipedia results of a google search of the name were about a basketball player from Niger. --JamesMoose (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concurring with previous poster in this being a hoax, rather than spam, as I indicated in my earlier vote, which I have now stricken. I have tagged the article as being a hoax. Safiel (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete G5 probably applies. Please see User:dlohcierekim/working/x for background. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Katrina Villegas. The pattern of the article is the same as those already deleted from her socks. The "Filipina child actress". The great looking sourcing that does not pan out. The "and is a member of Christian". The eponymous article. The accomplisments that would be more fitting an adult veteran actor rather than a child. There may be a FaceBook page with someone else's picture on it as in a recent iterattion. One iteration had a great looking webpage as a primary source. (She is creating these new socks and new articles faster than I can keep up with them.) ((This iteration has a whole new list of accomplshments, so she is morphing the articles. )) Dlohcierekim 07:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm at work and must stop now. If someone should like to consider re-opening the SPI page. Dlohcierekim 07:54, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Browne[edit]

Seamus Browne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, with the following concern "I don't feel that a PROD is appropriate for a player who has played in the highest level of Irish football, and has a 7-year old article. There should be a paper-trail ..." Original reason for nomination still applies - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played for a club in a fully professional league. JMHamo (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football. No indication of GNG pass based on any other activities within or outside football, partuclarly as the player only appears to have played a handful of times in the best part of a decade. Fenix down (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz (talk) 21:01, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Somerset hot air balloon crash[edit]

2011 Somerset hot air balloon crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT - This was a news story, however no lasting effect has been claimed or demonstrated. WikiNews is where this needs to be covered. LGA talkedits 07:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep It has some technical merit as coverage of an unusual event, a balloon accident at what is an unusually high altitude for ballooning. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to lasting effect (see the AAIB report), it has given rise to changes in operating advice and practice for such flights, specifically to reduce the speed of descent from altitude and the means employed to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete hot air balloon crashes still need to WP:EVENT. the coverage is routine, event happened and subsequent investigation. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mötley Crüe's tenth studio album[edit]

Mötley Crüe's tenth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:HAMMER at its finest. I couldn't find any coverage at all. Could be speedied as G3 as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's Hammer time. No meaningful content, completely unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced, no reliable sources confirm there will be a new studio album. In fact, the band has announced a farewell tour today. Permafrost46 (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not worth the redirect that the last creation of this ärticlë was granted.TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Raye Pimentel[edit]

Alexander Raye Pimentel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article CSD:A7'ed numerous times, puppetish new user deleting current CSD. Subject does not seem to pass WP:FILMMAKER and sampled references seem dubious at best (blog posts, etc) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 06:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN individual failing WP:42. Should be CSD'd and salted. reddogsix (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This person has as much of an importance as some of the other "filmmakers" on wiki. You can research this person on Google and see for yourself. He's on Martin Scorsese's IMDB, Richard Matheson's IMDB and Richard Price's IMDB. Also let's not forget to mention that it clearly states in the Basic Criteria for Notable people on Wikipedia “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.” Which I have provided.Monaeface25 (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Other stuff exists, just because other articles exist on Wikipedia does not mean this article meets the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The existing support is trivial at best. reddogsix (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is no evidence whatever of notability, for two reasons. Firstly, it is not a reliable source, as anyone can submit content. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is indiscriminate. Essentially, IMDb aims to be as inclusive as possible, and so it accepts content about virtually anyone who has ever taken any part in making any film, no matter how minor their contribution. Also, I'm afraid you have misunderstood the point of "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That means that the total coverage must be substantial, and that a number of moderate-sized bits of coverage may together contribute substantial coverage. It does not mean that large numbers of links to pages that do no more than barely mention the subject are good enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the attempt to suggest notability by flooding the article with large numbers of references, there is no significant coverage cited at all. Most of the sources merely list Pimentel's name in one or more credits, or make similar trivial mentions. A few of them don't even mention him at all. Only three of the cited sources gives more than just a mention of his name, and all three of them are clearly promotional sites. There is www.shortfilmcentral.com, which has the self-declared purpose "to help filmmakers promote their short films". There is frankiem.ipower.com, which declares its purpose to be "to Build New Opportunities for Young People", and announces that "The artists selected are the stars of tomorrow being launched today". There is "cineteam.co.uk" which does not, as far as I have been able to find, make any such clear declaration that it exists to promote those whom it lists, but perusal of the site makes it pretty clear that it has user-submitted content for its members to promote themselves. Google searches produce Alexander Raye Pimentel's own web site, IMDb, Facebook, Wikipedia, Vimeo, Linkedin, etc, and again sites that clearly exist for people to use to promote their own work. In short, absolutely no evidence anywhere of coming anywhere near satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards, but plenty of evidence of a concerted effort to get publicity on numerous web sites. (It is clear from the editing history of the creator of this article (including deleted edits) that this Wikipedia article is part of that effort.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 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 via WP:G5 as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Morning277. I have also salted the entries to hopefully prevent further re-creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Innoz[edit]

Innoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the third article on the topic. The first was speedily deleted as advertising, and the second as a creation of a group of undisclosed paid editors working for the publicists Wiki-PR (deletion log). SPI reports about the group were closed by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) without investigation, who wrote that "You cannot use editing the same article or topic area as evidence" [30] Shortly afterward, CitizenNeutral (talk · contribs) created stubs to replace the articles which had been speedily deleted. —rybec 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: the contributor of these articles has now been blocked as a sock-puppet of "Morning277". As this nomination was essentially an attempt to have the WP:CSD#G5 criteria applied to the work of an editor in good standing, it should be unnecessary now. —rybec 00:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also articles created by CitizenNeutral to replace deleted articles posted by the same group:

Sublimeharmony (talk · contribs), an account used by the group, posted a draft on the topic; later an article was posted and delted (deletion log)
has had only minor changes by editors other than CitizenNeutral [31]
Was also posted at simple:BillFloat; see Chenzw's comment at notice board there
Sublimeharmony draft
has had one minor change since CitizenNeutral stopped work on it
changes since CitizenNeutral stopped work on it consist of replacing "Sept" with "Sep" in the body of the article, maintenance tags, persondata, defaultsort and categories [32]--no meaningful changes to the body of the article
see also deletion log for Volusion
see also deletion log for Splash (service) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
minor changes by another editor [33]
another editor corrected "lead" to "led" [34]
changes by other editors consist of changing a category and adjusting white space [35]
others' only change has been a bot changing a link target from "American" to "United States" [36]
category added by other editor [37]
several changes by other editors such as changing "Sept" to "Sep" in citations and adding persondata [38] but no visible changes to the body
This one hadn't been deleted from here before, only from the Simple English Wikipedia, simple:Wayne Tamarelli.
other editors changed "Sept" to "Sep" and added persondata [39]

—rybec

  • Rybec, I'm a bit confused by this AfD. Is the argument you are putting forward that they were created by a banned editor? If so, why did you change your view to believe that CitizenNeutral was a Wiki-PR account? In the past you explained CitizenNeutral's motivations in creating these, and you worked to some extent with CitizenNeutral in recreating these articles [40]. Thus I'm wondering what has happened to change things so dramatically. - Bilby (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When CitizenNeutral first began replacing the articles, I wrote: [41]

@CitizenNeutral: hi, and welcome back. We may be at odds here: the earlier article was placed by a public relations firm, whose contributions I had been trying to get deleted. —rybec 22:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

CitizenNeutral then asked for "a master list" of my deletion requests. I responded: User:Rybec/CSD_log, User:Rybec/PROD_log and User:Rybec/sandbox. I didn't mention Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277, which listed articles that had been deleted without a request by me. CitizenNeutral later told me: "[...] I found Tamarelli and BillFloat on the list from Simple on the long-term abuse report you filed." Among CitizenNeutral's replacement articles, I only noticed one (which seems to have been deleted since) on a topic that hadn't been ascribed to the PR firm. Initially I wondered if the motivation for the restoration work might have been resentment over a bad interaction we had had earlier, or general questioning of my judgment. I had asked that other articles be deleted, and I did other things here, but CitizenNeutral didn't create replacements for those other articles, nor undo my other actions, instead focussing on the banned editors' topics. I've gotten the impression that the motivation may instead be a desire to help the PR firm. —rybec 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn, see above. —rybec 00:54, 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 g5, Morning277 sock. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virool[edit]

Virool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first article to have the Virool title was deleted [42] as a creation of the banned editor MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs), who has been associated with a group of undisclosed paid editors who have been identified as working for the company Wiki-PR. The current article was placed at Virool (company) after the original one was deleted. This tactic of using unnecessary disambiguation when recreating deleted articles was commonly used by this group of editors. Another habit of those editors was to make a series of minor edits until autoconfirmed, then post an article in a single edit, then abandon the account. Nertal (talk · contribs) followed that pattern. My report at WP:SPI was closed by DeltaQuad without investigation, along with scores of others. —rybec 05:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 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 g5, Morning277 sock. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadapt[edit]

Hadapt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like self-promotion: this article was created by the single-purpose account J.millis; two company press releases [43], [44] name a Jon Millis as Hadapt's "media contact". —rybec 05:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 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 g5, Morning277 sock. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzMob[edit]

BuzzMob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Daily Trojan is a college newspaper. Whether the piece in the Orange County Register is truly independent is questionable: the marketing coordinator (archived copy) for Buzzmob, Kjellrun "K.J." Owens, worked for the Register, according to the descriptions of Youtube videos [45] [46] linked from her social media page (archived copy) Also two other self-published pages ([47], [48]) (archived copies: [49], [50]) say she has worked for both the Register and Buzzmob. A couple of Register stories [51], [52] credit her. —rybec 05:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Barnett[edit]

Brian Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY. This article does not show the sort of third-party coverage we're looking for. The Forbes article is by him, not about him. The Business Insider piece is just a form interview "written" by a group he's a member of. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Salt - Same article that has been deleted 3 times previously. Subject is still no more notable than before. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's good at getting himself in things, from the look of it - but there's not much in the way of independent reliable sources. The Forbes thing is one of those youth spot things, and it's by him, not about him.. No indication of how well any of these ventures actually do. I sometimes think that every man and his dog (or do I mean bitch?) has a clothing line out. I've always preferred to have the labels on the inside... In time, maybe. Not yet, unless a load of evidence appears. BTW Yes, the first two Byian Barnett articles were different people and should be disregarded. I've a feeling salt might be need with this one, if now now, then next time it appears. Peridon (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can these sources be unreliable? He was vetted by Forbes AND Business Insider. The notoriety comes from the fact that this kid is SEVENTEEN! The fact he has accomplished this much before he has even graduated high school seems like enough for me. He is a fixture in his home town and in the industry as a whole. Forbes didn't have to put that article online, they chose to for a reason. Michaellandis (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Business Insider piece is just a copy of this piece from the YEC website. Given how similar pieces are now appearing also at the Yahoo Small Business site, it looks like these are basically press releases. They are not material generated by the sites in question. Per WP:GNG, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. The Forbes piece is by, not about, the subject; we do not consider being a writer for Forbes as inherently notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no sign of notoriety. Notoriety is a word that is correctly applied to the notability of Al Capone and Jack the Ripper - fame for reasons of being bad. It does not (I hope...) apply to a very respectable looking young businessman who will probably have an article here one day - for the right reasons. This word is, through the efforts of so many rappers and hiphop performers. being misapplied to non-notorious people. The rappers etc seem to all want to claim real notoriety, even if they've only ever had one parking ticket... Peridon (talk) 16:11, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Kakhelishvili[edit]

Georgi Kakhelishvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Umaglesi Liga may be professional. While there is undoubtedly some degree of professionalism in the league, claims that the league is fully pro are not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Where's the evidence that Umaglesi Liga isn't fully professional. Relatively large stadiums, good-sized crowds, good standing in Europe that puts it in line with leagues that are fully professional. As this player has played for years in this league, the deletion hinges entirely on Umaglesi Liga not being fully professional. So where's the evidence? Nfitz (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously ... but surely this debate has happened before, and we wouldn't have a bunch of people trying to delete articles without having looked into the issue before. So how about providing a useful answer instead of just wasting peoples time by obfuscating. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How it generally works is, articles about players in xyz league are sent to AfD, sources appear to confirm the league's status and the articles are kept, or they don't and they aren't. Of course, if this particular player has had a very long career, there is a good chance he could meet the general notability guideline. But there is no evidence of that. C679 09:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football. No indication of GNG pass based on any other activities within or outside football. @Nfitz: - as has been pointed out to you in previous AfDs recently, no one is saying the FPL listing is faultless, but it is the current agreed consensus. If you have evidence that the Umaglesi League is FULLY professional, please present it at the WT:FOOTY page for discussion. If it is indicative of FPL status, then the listing can be updated and any previously deleted articles revived however, a specific player AfD is not the place for such a discussion. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment @Fenix down: First though, I wanted to read where this consensus has been agreed. I can't find reference to where this consensus has been agreed upon. Presumably if we've got to point we are deleting players, a consensus has been reached. Where is discussion? It's all I'm asking at this point. No pointing rehashing if it's all well sorted. I'm no expert on Georgian soccer ... and it's not like Uruguay which is always on TV. Nfitz (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The consensus is WP:FPL. As the Georgian League is not on there it is right to state that there is no consensus that it is fully pro, therefore the only assumption available to editors at the moment is that it is not. If you feel that it is fully pro, by all means dig out some sources and start a discussion at the project page, GS or another admin can restore any deleted Georgian footballer article if it is added to the list of FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the lack of discussion or mention at that page, is not consensus. It simply is the lack of previous consideration. While I doubt this league is fully professional, I don't see any need to misrepresent that consensus exists! Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no evidence of sufficient notability. C679 09:11, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liao Junjian[edit]

Liao Junjian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article exists in Chinese, which has no bearing whatsoever on notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football. No indication of GNG pass based on any other activities within or outside football. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant media coverage, such as [53] [54] There are many more routine articles that he is mentioned in the headlines, and hundreds more where he's mentioned in the article. Nfitz (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – no reasonable evidence he passes GNG, two articles from the same source do not meet the requirements. "Many more routine articles [where] he is mentioned" do not establish notability either. He hasn't played at a high enough level or gained enough attention, per the guidelines, to have an article. C679 12:56, 8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Eye of Minds[edit]

The Eye of Minds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

− Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The non-notable book has been removed. Science Saturdays (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Science Saturdays: What do you mean by removed? ///EuroCarGT 04:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- @EuroCarGT: The book that was deemed non-notable has been taken off of the sources list. Science Saturdays (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I found some sources for it and the book should have no problem meeting notability guidelines now. On a side note, I did notice that Dashner was very vocal about this not being a dystopian series in his eyes and as such I've removed any such labels for the book from the lead and infobox. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Thank you for the support and edits! Science Saturdays (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 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 WITHDRAWN. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators (Wikipedia)[edit]

Administrators (Wikipedia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. While there are sources for all of these articles, they are not notable separate and apart from Wikipedia, and therefore should not be forked off of Wikipedia. The items received attention in the context of Wikipedia, and, were these articles written about subsections/subprocesses of any other website, we would find their notability lacking. We should not treat Wikipedia differently than we do other websites. Initial filing of this AfD

Sven Manguard Wha? 04:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to project page and it's just (Wikipedia:) blastertalk! see 07:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wikipedia. The minutiae of Wikipedia does indeed get more coverage than most web sites, but that doesn't necessarily make this minutiae encyclopedic. Nobody (hopefully) would advocate a series of content forks from Flickr or Gmail that describe every minor aspect of those websites. New Gmail features probably get more coverage than some C-list celebrities do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa says [55] that the most popular sites are google.com, facebook.com, youtube.com, yahoo.com, baidu.com, wikipedia.org, qq.com and taobao.com (in that order). There are roughly 200 articles in each of Category:Google services, Category:Google, Category:Yahoo! and their subcategories. Category:Facebook has around 100. Category:YouTube has around 450. Category:Wikipedia has around 320. Category:Baidu and Category:Tencent Holdings (for QQ) each have 11; Category:Alibaba_Group has 5. So it seems that the most popular US-based Web sites each have between 100 and 450 related articles, and the most popular Chinese Web sites each have around 5 or 10.

Can we can dismiss the stories in the Atlantic, the Daily Mail, Wired, BBC News, and NBC News just because all are about the same event and all appeared in the same month?

If so, that still leaves three scholarly papers. Their titles, Modeling Wikipedia admin elections using multidimensional behavioral social networks, Taking up the mop: identifying future wikipedia administrators and Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: how wikipedia administrators mold public opinion, imply that they are largely about the administrators. Although two appear in the same publication, there is no overlap among their authors. One appeared in 2008 and the others in 2013.

The sources seem to meet WP:42. —rybec 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I started my comment, the nomination said "While well sourced and well written, the project's administrators really aren't notable separate and apart from Wikipedia itself, and so this shouldn't be forked from the main coverage of Wikipedia." and it was just for the one article. —rybec 13:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all The main article about Wikipedia is 188K which, per WP:SIZE, is much too large and so should be divided into sub-topics per WP:SPLIT. How we divide the content is a matter of editorial discretion and, if the split isn't quite right, would be amended by merger not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Wikipedia is a bit large, but it's not that dramatic. WP:SIZE is about readable prose, not raw document size. The readable prose is about 65K, which means that it probably should be split, but it's not yet mandatory. Wikipedia administrators could be easily integrated into that article without substantially increasing the size. I mean, there isn't all that much to say. I like the info from the scientific studies (it's interesting), but the rest is fluff that can be left behind. It wouldn't overwhelm the parent article. An article about Wikipedia's logo strikes me as silly trivia, but I'm willing to admit that it has enough trivial coverage to warrant a merge. WIR could be reduced to a single sentence: Some people think it's a waste of money[1], but others think it's pretty keen.[2] NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since it is explaining pretty well, I don't think it should be removed. Unless there is some similar page. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Administrators (Wikipedia). Per rybec's analysis, there exist multiple in-depth independent RS (and I would count the stories in Atlantic, the Daily Mail, Wired, BBC News, and NBC News as another RS for the purposes of notability) upon which to base this article so this topic passes WP:GNG notability thresholds. If a feature of a website is notable, there is no problem having an article on it, e.g., Facebook Graph Search. The article itself seems to have no major problems. A notable topic and no major article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A relevant recent AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citation needed, which closed as delete. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as discussed meets notability requirements, namely secondary sources; I am sure we can find space amongst our 4 million plus articles for this. --LT910001 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominating all these in a single AfD was a bad idea. Some should probably be merged and some kept separate per GNG and WP:SUMMARY, but the set of articles listed here is too diverse for a single AfD. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above comment. Wikipedian in Residence, in particular. seems well supported by sources and it should certainly be kept. The different articles should not be discussed together. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that these needed AfDed separately. Those that are WP:GNG should be Kept and the others Merged unless WP:TOOLONG becomes a significant issue. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep secondary coverage seems significant enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of combined nomination and at least some of these being supported by significant coverage in secondary sources. (Cherry picking a la "keep x, delete y, redirect z, merge a into x, delete b only if x is kept" etc. just creates a mire for determination of consensus). --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that it is useful, it answers a question that is not answered elsewhere on line, deletion is just picky navel gazing. Where it goes is irrelevant to the guy who makes the Google search. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, as those articles should have not been lumped together. Strong keep for administrators, the topic is very much notable (this group is subject to a number of academic studies). Some others I might have voted differently, but since this is a group nom, it's not an issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:03, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiane Brown[edit]

Tiane Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local crime. Fails NN criteria. See WP:CRIME. reddogsix (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have been watching this article for a week or so now trying to figure out what my opinion about it is. And from what I can see this is a case of WP:CRIME. However the article definitly needs sourcing and a copyedit but that is not a good reason for deletion. Contact the article creator if it is kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How does what you said justify keeping the article per Wikipedia guidelines? reddogsix (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline keep, for the moment - currently it is too WP:RECENT to tell on WP:GNG. A move WP:VICTIM to Murder of Tiane Brown would be needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete definitely fails WP:CRIME "historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role" is not demonstrated. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 7 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fusebill[edit]

Fusebill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; Most of the refs are local business journals and therefore not reliable sources, for what they publish is best considered as pure press releases. The other references are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Entertainment[edit]

Prometheus Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable, there are no secondary references establishing its notability.[56][57][58] Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 02:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article does not give much indication, but they get significant coverage from Variety: [59], [60], [61], [62]. Probably more at The Hollywood Reporter, too, but I don't think THR makes their archive freely available. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article looks a bit better now. There's at least some kind of history and assertion of notability, but about half of the citations are trivial mentions that can't be used to establish notability. Still, I think the linked articles on Variety go pretty far. I tried checking a few other TV and film-related sites, but Prometheus Entertainment doesn't really seem to be a major player, like Amblin. Still, they seem to be known for their pop culture documentaries and reality shows. One of them even got a few Emmy nominations. I guess that counts for something. The biggest problem is that the article is rather heavily biased toward sourcing from Variety. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kevin Burns. There's some coverage of this company in reliable sources, but it's almost always passing mentions in the context of discussing Burns rather than anything in-depth about the company. The Variety sources listed above are good, but are mostly project announcements rather than discussions of the company.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Looks like there is enough out there to establish notability --CyberXRef☎ 05:04, 3 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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kike San Martín[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kike San Martín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD/Kike San Martín (2nd nomination) closed as "delete". I was neither the nominator of the AfD (The Banner) nor its closer (Keeper76) but I was the most verbose contributor to it. For this reason, I hesitate before summarily deleting it, and instead bring it to others' attention here.

The article was recreated as ""Kike" San Martín", but it's pretty similar to the previously deleted article, whose latest version admins can see here. As an example, from the old, deleted version:

San Martín began his career studying marketing and advertising. Working in a fashion boutique, he photographed regular people wearing its clothing out in Argentina's night scene. San Martín's work caught the interest of a regional newspaper. As a result, he developed a section in the Sunday supplement dedicated to capture the spontaneous heart and spirit of Argentinas' nightlife. Since this first job, San Martín's work in Miami in the editorial industry has included a freelance job in the newspaper ''[[El Nuevo Herald]]''.<ref name="misionesonline2">{{cite news | author=''Diario "Misiones Online"''| title=Kike San Martín quiere fotografiar estrella de Hollywood | url=http://www.misionesonline.net/noticias/12/05/2012/kike-san-martin-quiere-fotografiar-estrella-de-hollywood| work=''Misiones Online'', Argentina| date= May 12, 2012| accessdate=Mar 16, 2013}} {{es icon}}</ref>

From the current one:

San Martín began his career studying marketing and advertising. Working in a fashion boutique, he photographed regular people wearing its clothing out in Argentina's night scene. San Martín's work caught the interest of a regional newspaper. As a result, he developed a section in the Sunday supplement dedicated to capture the spontaneous heart and spirit of Argentinas' nightlife. Since this first job, San Martín's work in Miami in the editorial industry has included a freelance job in the newspaper ''[[El Nuevo Herald]]''.<ref name="misionesonline2">{{cite news | author=''Diario "Misiones Online"''| title=Kike San Martín quiere fotografiar estrella de Hollywood | url=http://www.misionesonline.net/noticias/12/05/2012/kike-san-martin-quiere-fotografiar-estrella-de-hollywood| work=''Misiones Online'', Argentina| date= May 12, 2012| accessdate=Mar 16, 2013}} {{es icon}}</ref>

Uh-huh. (Even "Argentinas" remains plural.)

But hang on, there's a new section, titled "PeTA". Here's what it says (after markup-stripping):

Since 2011 the actress and model Patricia de Leon[12] worked with PETA[13] to reduce support for bullfighting among Hispanic people, and was photographed by Kike San Martín for an anti bullfighting campaign.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

Most of the proffered sources are in Spanish. Of course there is nothing wrong with this, but anyway let's just look at the titles that these sources are claimed to have. These include:

One problem I pointed out in the second AfD for this article was that the references within it often had their titles more or less subtly altered to emphasize the importance of the biographee, Kike San Martín. This "new" article shows that the person or group serially (re)creating it has learned nothing. The article also contains much unsourced name-dropping (all the celebs that KSM has photographed, etc), and really doesn't assert much notability (in the non-Wikipedia sense of the word). In view of all of this I suggest deletion and salting of both this article and "Kike" San Martín (currently a redirect). -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Rocco (despite its title, a second AfD for the same article), also started today. -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment KSM is a contributor of celeb photos to Wikimedia Commons. Their captions in en:Wikipedia link to the article on him. They turn out to be an odd bunch of articles; the most amusing I've yet encountered is that on Carlos Mejia, an article that maybe should come to AfD as well. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just nominated that one for G11. Perhaps this should be considered for some of the others as wll. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. What is new here does not change his notability, last afd result should be applied here. Reposting is part of a bad faithed gaming of the system.
Lorena Pinot created by a Misty. Deleted 2 April 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at Lorena Pinot (singer).
Kike San Martín created by a Misty. Deleted 20 March 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at "Kike" San Martín.
Leonardo Rocco created by a Misty. Deleted 9 April 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at Leo Rocco.
All reposted by a new account at a new location, both to avoid scrutiny, trying to sneek the articles back in through a back door. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:56, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kouhrang Dam[edit]

Kouhrang Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability since April 2010; however, no improvements were made for establishing notability. No English search results, except different wikies based on this page. There may be more deep coverage in Farsi. Beagel (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a hydroelectric generation plant and dam, notability can be assumed; and sources are very likely to be found in Farsi. Systemic bias may be an issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not every hydroplant and dam is notable, particularly in the case of micro- and small hydro projects. You can't just asume a notability of every micro- and small scale project. If there are sources satisfying WP:GNG, the article should be kept. Otherwise, it should be deleted. During almost four years nobody has provided any reliable third party source providing a significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail. Just mentioning the name of the dam by sources is not enough for WP:GNG. As for Systemic bias, it may be an issue, of course, but unlikely. During the last four years, members of WP:DAMS, particularly user:NortyNort has expanded all similar stubs created by the same author. Remained only stubs where no sources available. There is also no article in Farsi. Beagel (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Given the growth trend for renewable energy plants, notability cannot be simply assumed, or else things would quickly get out of hand. Johnfos (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fairly notable; part of a larger water project, >50m in height at least (need to do more research), and has a sizable power plant. I added some references but don't have the time now to do more work on the article. Seems some English references recently became available for this one. I will expand this one more shortly.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so this HPP is Kouhrang 2 and is part of a large water transfers project. I thought it was Kouhrang 3 which is a large arch dam to be constructed downstream at a later date.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:55, 27 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) 02:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn my nomination. The article has significantly improved and its notability is established by sources. Beagel (talk) 05:41, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piran Dam[edit]

Piran Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability since April 2010; however, no improvements were made for establishing notability. No English search results, except different wikies based on this page. There may be more deep coverage in Farsi. Beagel (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a hydroelectric generation plant and dam, notability can be assumed; and sources are very likely to be found in Farsi. Systemic bias may be an issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not every hydroplant and dam is notable, particularly in the case of micro- and small hydro projects. You can't just asume a notability of every micro- and small scale project. If there are sources satisfying WP:GNG, the article should be kept. Otherwise, it should be deleted. During almost four years nobody has provided any reliable third party source providing a significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail. The CDM project page, provided by Soman, provides a coverage, so it may meet the criteria, but it would be helpful if there will be also third party sources. As for Systemic bias, it may be an issue, of course, but unlikely. During the last four years, members of WP:DAMS, particularly user:NortyNort has expanded all similar stubs created by the same author. Remained only stubs where no sources available. Beagel (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. Given the growth trend for renewable energy plants, notability cannot be simply assumed, or else things would quickly get out of hand. Johnfos (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of power stations in Iran or just delete. I did a similar AfDthree years ago on a plethora of planned dams in Iran. Hard to find information on these and it is a small hydroelectric plant. I have worked on many of these articles and expanded what I could. If we don't delete or redirect it will be four more years!... of stub status...--NortyNort (Holla) 14:10, 25 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) 02:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn my nomination. Minimum notability is established although it needs more third party sources. Beagel (talk) 18:49, 3 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All India Kashmiri Samaj[edit]

All India Kashmiri Samaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advocacy article for political organization -- no substantial references bout the organization itself . DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable organization. The present state of the article ought to be dealt with a rewrite, not deletion. Google books gives 27 results for 'All India Kashmiri Samaj' (in Latin script), there are also texts that use 'All India Kashmir Samaj'. --Soman (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
which do you think are substantial? DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Respectively: Doesn't seem to mention AIKS at all, merely mentions AIKS, Google doesn't permit me to read it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:34, 26 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) 02:13, 26 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, Northamerica1000(talk) 23:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about a Social Organisation, or a socio-political organisation to represent the voice of the minority community of the Kashmir Valley region. It would be inappropriate to call it a advocacy article for a political organisation, which it is clearly not. Ample credible sources are cited where the name occurs in notable dailies & news articles. It would be too early to judge it for deletion. We need to allow the article to mature & take better form. -Ambar (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this article which mentions the Youth wing of All India Kashmiri Samaj - YAIKS. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/not-successful-in-ensuring-return-of-kashmiri-pandits-omar/1/334577.html . Should provide some content & citation clues for the article. -Ambar (talk) 19:33, 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. If someone still wants to improve the article ask me or any other administrator for userfication.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee USA Network[edit]

Jubilee USA Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A purely promotional article, here since 2006, with 3/4 of the content copied from their website. . I have not been able to find any sufficiently RSs, though they may exist. Even if they do, this would need to be started over.

I see the related articles in the see alsos here: Jubilee 2000 and Jubilee Debt Coalition. Neither of them seems better sourced, and they seem equally promotional. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:45, 10 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 18 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) 02:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons that DGG gives. If the person who above suggests "Keep and re-write" had done a moderate amount of rewriting, I might think otherwise; but as this person hasn't made even token edits, I'm unconvinced. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State Investors Bancorp[edit]

State Investors Bancorp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed as being large enough to require discussion. No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A little harder to support this one due to its size, but it has been around for 120 years which for a smaller bank is probably notable for simply having stayed independent and surviving for so long. In any case, appears to have enough independent third party refs to meet WP:GNG. I don't see how WP:NOTYELLOW even applies. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per VMS Mosaic In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:22, 18 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) 02:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been very skeptical about such articles, and have nominated a good many of them for deletion. This firm appears sufficiently large to be given the benefit of the doubt. Corporate size is not a formal criterion, but it is not irrelevant. We need some basis for decision, and the GNG doesn';t help much, because it's generally ambiguous if the materual in the sources is significant coverage in the usual sense. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This financial institution is publicly traded, has been around for over a century and has marked itself as notable in legal, banking, and business circles. Yes, it needs to have some work done here, and the article needs some fleshing out, but I think it serves a very valid purpose. I know that Wiki is not a business directory, but this entry is notable in my opinion and for what it is worth.  BerkeleyLaw1979 00:47, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Festarch[edit]

Festarch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:33, 18 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) 02:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An event in Italy which has no equivalent article on the Italian Wikipedia, following two deletions there. The website is currently giving details on the 2012 festival, and the most substantial 3rd party coverage that I can find on any of its years is this. Fails WP:NEVENT. AllyD (talk) 15:10, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo Camp[edit]

Dynamo Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 11 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, buffbills7701 12:13, 18 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) 02:10, 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. This has no place on the site. Going a bit out-of-process here in the interest of academic integrity, but undelete if need be. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of rape victims from modern history[edit]

List of rape victims from modern history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently created unsourced list is a prime target for WP:BLP violations and victimization and with no criteria for inclusion. Delete Secret account 02:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete BLP issues. --Rschen7754 02:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a bucket of salt if I can. No, just no. Disclosure per the sandwich below -- KTC (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a honeypot for serious BLP issues and re-victimizing victims. It's not possible to make an exhaustive list of rape victims of the modern era, nor is being the victim of rape usually a notable thing in the sense that we use "notable". For most people who are already notable for something else, plunking them down in a list as "a victim of rape" - even if there's a source for that - as if that's somehow a defining characteristic of their existence, is demeaning. Being a rape victim carries a stigma in most modern societies, and WP:BLPCAT reminds us that "caution should be used with [content categories and lists] that suggest a person has a poor reputation." Disclosure: Secret asked my opinion of this list on IRC before filing this AfD. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fluffernutter. And fast. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly almost a G10 (but not quite).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fluffernutter and the disgust with which fictional rapes (i.e something generally done for entertainment purposes such as an incident on a police procedural show) would be considered in the same area as real life incidents. I'd also go so far as to and admonish the creator to consider the sort of atmosphere they are cultivating with their edits. Disclosure: Secret also asked my opinion of this list via an IRC channel before filing this AfD. Nick (talk) 02:39, 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. Anyone wishing to merge is of course welcome to do so as a normal editorial action. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zev Bellringer[edit]

Zev Bellringer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability independent of Lexx through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Major character from cult TV series; at minimum merge to Lexx#The_crew, possibly break out into separate article on characters. I'm not sure what "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article" has to do with it - that's not how Wikipedia works. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - principal character in a major long-running internationally distributed TV series - masses of precedents. NB - it's fiction - "real-world"? (I see where this comes from). Eustachiusz (talk) 17:13, 11 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) 16:33, 18 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) 01:52, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Jai Lal Ji Ubhi[edit]

Baba Jai Lal Ji Ubhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. I can find nothing at JSTOR, GScholar, GBooks etc I've also tried offline works by authors such as Khushwant Singh without success. Perhaps he is revered in the locality but the one source given is as likely to be an amateur commemorative publication as anything else. I've not been able to check for Punjabi sources. Sitush (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. One source with little information available. Decidedly fails the "sources" test for WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gm545 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 2 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:24, 15 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) 01:14, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prowl (application)[edit]

Prowl (application) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article for company that is not yet notable, never having released a product. Sourced entirely to mere notices, press releases, an a list of companies in WP. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Woah, hang on! This article is richly sourced! It's got sixteen citations of www.crunchbase.com/company/prowl alone. (For one assertion, it even cites this twice. Is this thorough sourcing, or what?) And the CrunchBase page looks very academic, with its own list of sourced assertions. More specifically, they're all sourced directly to getprowl.com. Yes, what DGG says. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and Hoary, whose sarcasm, though appropriate and wide-ranging, sadly lacks a joke about their "100,000 beta subscribers." I won't upstage by including one. Seriously, there's nothing in the newspapers about this company, let alone more substantial reliable sources. Some kind of props for the publicity photo of the founder, though, really.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Complete the set: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Mendy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough and too promotional, as expected from an article sourced from press releases and primary sources. Too soon for an article at this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlise Munoz[edit]

Marlise Munoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not nearly enough biographical information for a biographical article. Should be redirected to something like Marlise Munoz case. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 00:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article has been moved to Death of Marlise Munoz, the nomination is no longer operative, as my concerns have been more than satisfied. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 12:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article definitely needs expansion. But as to the title, we have precedence with the Jahi McMath article which is significant for very similar reasons to this one, but also contains very little biographical information. Funcrunch (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Strong keep. This case sets a very strong legal precedent that Texas law (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/HS/2/H/166/B/166.049) addressing life support for pregnant women is not applicable in cases of brain death. This case has received huge attention including coverage by New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/us/pregnant-and-forced-to-stay-on-life-support.html?_r=1) and Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595028-rare-case-rouses-passions-among-pro-choice-and-pro-life-alike-brain-dead-and-pregnant) We also had a similar case from California (Jahi McMath). Nevertheless If people feel strongly about it, this article can be renamed "Marlise Munoz Case."Preetikapoor0 (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm seeking ... having it renamed to focus on the case, not the person. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 02:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds Good.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to focus on the case or delete. As it stands, the article clearly fails WP:BLP1E. Jonathunder (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it if necessary. Don't delete it. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'm withdrawing the nomination. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 12:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely set to become a major rep. rights/bioethics case. This isn't me crystalling - it's reliable sources predicting it. Anyhow, it's far surpassed the ridiculously low standard that the WP community usually likes to use for events, especially when they're missing white women or murders in Israel. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - An important case; a notable case. Keep under the new title "Death of ...". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:46, 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open University of Switzerland[edit]

Open University of Switzerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable institution -- fails WP:GNG. Article (which is advert-like) is sourced only to the institution's website and an advertising website with no evidence of credibility. Google search turned up a couple more advertisements, but no credible independent sources. Note: Websearching is complicated by fact that "Open University" and "Switzerland" occur together rather often in connection with other unrelated topics. Orlady (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notoble per WP:ORG. Does not have independent reliable sources. Appears more like an advertisement. Audit Guy (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a problem. It is usually relatively easy to tell if conventional universities have a real existence. It can be much more difficult for an purely online university, There are a number of rather dubious physical as well as online institutions in Switzerland, presumably because of some legal loophole. The licensing by the Swiss government is a business license, not an educational accreditation, The listing by the various professional organizations is sufficiently convincing to me to indicate real existence. I notice the description on the university's web page, offering a curriculum leading to both a MBA and a doctorate in a single year. By the usual standards, this would represent a diploma mill, but there are fewer standards in online education, where I suppose it is conceivable that an individual might mange to do that. . The number of students is claimed, not proven; ditto for faculty. There seems to be no firm evidence anyone has ever completed any of its programs. .
I can understand our reluctance to cover schools like this as if they were conventional colleges, or reputable nonconventional ones. If kept, perhaps the best thing to do is to add some more of the information from their web site. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The only source cited to indicate that this entity is licensed in Switzerland is the entity's own website. The fact that an entity has a website on which it posts a claim of government recognition establishes neither notability nor credibility. --Orlady (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
following the links there, the recognition such as it is, as well as the listing on the subject-oriented sites, seems to be real enough--it is also meaningless academically. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the "Open University" website does link to a government website where the corporate entity A.B.M.S. Education Group (not "Open University of Switzerland") is listed as a registered business (along with numerous other business entities, like Absolut Balance Pilates Fitness Studio) and where a laudatory "description" (obviously written by the A.B.M.S. Education Group) is reproduced. Appearance on a list of registered businesses is nothing near the kind of independent coverage needed to meet the general notability guideline, much less an indication that this is a "university" that meets the standards of WP:ORG. --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If kept, this article would look like an attempt at using Wikipedia as an avenue for advertising. Audit Guy (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This website is a business register by the municipality of Zug to which any local business can submit their own entry. This is meaningless in terms of notability.  Sandstein  19:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I think the only question is whether this is a notable diploma mill or a non-notable diploma mill. But it clearly is not a serious or respected institution. A serious university whose courses are in English would not have an FAQ written in broken English. Universities that offer a one-year dual MBA/PhD program are not serious especially if they have an FAQ that contradicts this explicitly. Pichpich (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consider to be a nonnotable diploma mill, like the vast majority of red-linked entities listed on List of unaccredited institutions of higher education (and many more that advertise themselves on the Internet, but don't appear on that list). The reason this institution doesn't appear on that list yet is that we don't even have a reliable source to affirmatively state that it lacks accreditation/approval/authorization. --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article contains no reliable third-party coverage as required by WP:GNG. Anything can call itself a "university" in Switzerland, because of virtually non-existent regulation particularly in certain cantons including Zug. This is an online education business like very many others and with no apparent distinguishing features. The art. 24 VZAE registration it claims to have is a routine registration required for acceptance as a school for certain bureaucratic purposes related to the admission of foreign students to Switzerland, but no indication of any importance, and little or no indication of quality. I can't imagine why a purely online school would even need such a registration, except to suggest an official status it hasn't got. Its "registration number" is its commerce register number, required by any Swiss business.  Sandstein  20:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with DDG that this article is problematic and that it's credibility is questionable, however, I must fall into the delete camp as there is no solid reference for it being an accredited educational institution and it fails to meet the other guidelines if looked at in terms of WP:SIGCOV or WP:ORG. Mkdwtalk 21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree with what you said about manythings, lets start with diploma mill, I can give you a link where you can get an MBA from Manchester Metropolitan University or University of university of derby and many other Universities in 5-6 months and without Bachelor degree, are you interested to see? so an MBA or DBA in one year is not a diploma Mill, and regarding the Name Open University of Switzerland, its 100% legal by Swiss law and I asked a Prof. in Law from Zurich and he said its 100% legal and he is teaching in Zurich University I don't want mention his name her, but can mention if needed. ABMS is officially registered to be a teaching Institute (please check www.zefix.admin.ch). so I don't see any reason for delete, otherwise we must delete half of the universities in Europe because they offer 6 months MBA or 1 year DBA. --Markos200 (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It is inconceivable that any institution with recognized accreditation will grant both a MBA and DBA degree in one year. A typical DBA doctorate degree alone will take anywhere between 2 - 4 years to complete for full and part-time studies, and this includes distance learning programs. In any event this article entry does not have any verifiable independent sources for it to be kept. Audit Guy (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zefix.admin.ch is the Swiss commerce register. All corporations must register there, and they can register whatever they want as their purpose, including teaching. This register entry is essentially self-published and of no relevance concerning notability. Besides, the register entry tells us that there is only one person associated with this corporation, a Syrian national, and that the corporation has only the legal minimum capital of CHF (=USD) 20.000, all of which aren't exactly clear signs of notability. The other arguments by Markos200, whose edits are only to articles about Swiss private teaching businesses of sometimes questionable notability, do not address the problems raised in this discussion.  Sandstein  13:30, 6 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) 00:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rescale[edit]

Rescale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"inadequate evidence for notability. and "an undisclosed sum of funding from" (several very prominent, named, and linked investors) sourced only to the company site is pure promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

investment is noted on Jeff Bezos' personal investment site http://www.bezosexpeditions.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon345345 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in Newsbank or ProQuest but a couple of PR Newswire things, which obviously mean nothing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I searched Techcrunch which covers such start-ups in plenty detail (a site which DGG might consider too niche for WP:CORPDEPTH), but even there I couldn't find anything about Rescale, so probably not notable enough for Wikipedia at the moment. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Company details and some select investors mentioned at https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/rescale and https://angel.co/rescale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon345345 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakir Naghiyev[edit]

Shakir Naghiyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With a Google scholar h-index of only 8 [63] in a high-citation discipline, he does not pass WP:PROF#C1 and there is no evidence of passing any other notability criterion either. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by arguments of nominator. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 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) 00:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life in Colonial America[edit]

Life in Colonial America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a school project, falls under WP:NOTESSAY ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Reads like a school assignment. Totally without sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sadly, as it's clearly a good faith contribution but by someone who doesn't quite understand the encyclopedia. Unsourced, far too broad-brush, just not appropriate. PamD 15:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess the good news is that we should be hearing from a campus ambassador or professor shortly. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:29, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_January_26&oldid=1142628960"