Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 February 17 February >

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headspace (band)[edit]

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

There claim to "fame" is that their songs appeared on a football game, however they do not appear to be a notable as required by the band inclusion guideline. The award nomination is not notable as the award itself is not notable and the awards website is down suggesting that possibly, the awards organisation no longer exists. They also lack coverage in reliable sources to pass general notability guideline. Mattg82 (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The only references listed in the article aside from the defunct awards page is to the band's personal sites. I could not find any othe reliable third party sources elsewhere to help establish any sort of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above (failure to meet WP:BAND)--Tgeairn (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources found, not notable enough. Ken Tholke (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and rename Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Startling by Each Step episodes[edit]

List of Startling by Each Step episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've added the proposed delete template on List of Startling by Each Step episodes because of the following concerns: "Believed to be unnecessary due to each episode's summary lack relevants, listed under Singapore's airdates instead of its original from Mainland China, incomplete, spoilers, lacking activities, sloppiness, and does not cite any reference. Unless improvements are made, I am standing the proposal of deletion of the article. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge and redirect. Concerns about air-dates is not a reason to delete...easy enough to change to those of country of origin (or add if the Singapore broadcasts are somehow important too). Concerns about sloppiness is never a reason to do delete...fix it or tag it. WP:SPOILER is never a reason to do anything. Episode-lists are common for many series, and putting them in a separate article is a standard way to avoid cluttering up a long article about the series itself. Which leaves us with general notability (WP:UNDUE, fancruft, or excessive/unencyclopediac detail...WP is not TV Guide) and lack of citations. The series article (Startling by Each Step) seems to have excessive plot-summary and other details (cf. WP:PLOT, I've tagged that article accordingly)--it's a series based on a book, so I assume the substantial plot is the book's topic--so I'd support redirecting back to the parent and putting a brief summary of how the series follows the plot of the book (again, don't duplicate book details). DMacks (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shotgun nomination manages to hit one actual deletion reason amongst the several listed. As is, the nominator admits that it aired in two national television networks, which means that the lack of sourcing should be easily remedyable. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is practically like written by a five year old, even though I know it is written by a Chinese audieance of the show who lacked the profieciency of English grammar, writing, and spelling.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my and Lonelydarksky's comments aren't that this article needs to be cleaned up (salvageable topic or viable article if rewritten), but merely also noting that the merge or more-appropriate-home target of the content also may need attention. DMacks (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still say delete. Whoever writing the synopsis is giving away excessive details, and writes like five years old. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to List of Scarlet Heart episodes leaving redirect behind. As pointed out above, this meets N and LIST, but still needs IRS. I suspect the synopsis writer is either a younger editor or a primary speaker of a language other than English (possibly both), but neither issues disqualifies the writer from contributing. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In respect to the people who originally aired the episodes, I believe that airdate should be changed to its original from mainland China. Because, each region has different airdates. The orginator of the article obviously stick with where he or she comes from, but US airs the show two months before Singapore.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. !Votes by single purpose accounts are given less weight. Nonetheless there is a clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 01:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kardashian[edit]

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

This article seems like a textbook case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Robert Kardashian seems to have an article because his children are famous and he was part of a famous event (the OJ Simpson trial), but I'm not convinced he's actually notable in his own right. Can anyone find an article, other than obituaries, that focuses on him outside of the context of OJ or his family? If not, this article should be deleted as failing WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Are you kidding me? 1,260 google books hits, 103 google news hits, not that I had to look those up to know that he is notable. He was a very famous, high-profile lawyer. Even if he were only mentioned in the context of the O.J. Simpson case, which he is not, why would that not make him notable? The O.J. Simpson murder case was certainly a notable event, and Robert Kardashian was a key player in the event MisterRichValentine (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Compared to his family which acquired their fame through sheer annoyance and media management, Robert's article is rock-solid. Good sources, good profile and notability is assured. Nate • (chatter) 04:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think this is what WP:NOTINHERITED is for. Kardashian was covered extensively in reliable sources, and even if the bulk of his fame related to O.J., those articles (and his obituaries in major papers around the world) were about him. I also concur with Nate/Mrschimpf's point. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NI doesn't really work here. Robert's article dates to October 1, 2003, a day after his death and even in that nascent form summed up his importance. His daughter Kim's article dates only to October 14, 2006 (in godawful US Weeklyesque-sourced form regarding the Ray J junk), and details about his family didn't appear in his article until late August 2005, when Kourtney appeared on an E! reality show. I really don't see how NI applies here when his family's articles didn't pop up until after 2006. Nate • (chatter) 08:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't fit, we must acquit. Sizable obituaries in the New York Times and the Guardian alone are sufficient proof of his notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The many, many valid reasons for keeping it already listed on this page not withstanding, even the deletion reason given in this nomination is provably wrong. Robofish says "Robert Kardashian seems to have an article because his children are famous." This article was created (by me) in 2003, four full years before his children got a TV show and became famous. Raul654 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Robert Kardashian had fame well before his children became famous. He wasn't merely "part" of the O.J. Simpson murder trial and surrounding story. He was a notable part. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gunn Jr.[edit]

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

His murder is one of two cases in Houston, County that is unsolved, but that does not show notability per WP:VICTIM. The only news article is from 1984 which is when he was murdered and I can't find anymore. There has been no coverage after the year of his murder. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not mentioned much in media doesnt equal non-notability. seems to pass WP:GNG. need more input I think on this AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most murder victims receive coverage in multiple sources which is why I brought up WP:VICTIM. There is also only one news reference in the article anyway. SL93 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see anything that can be done with this article to make it more notable than so many other stalled murder investigations. I don't see anywhere that it might be merged, except maybe a new section in the Houston County, Georgia article. Those who may still be seeking closure to this event perhaps need to get in touch with John Walsh and/or the Attorney General of Georgia, as well as put continuing effort into promoting the Gunn Cold Case website. The article can always be recreated later on down the road if significant, noteworthy developments take place. This article is not covered under WP:BLP1E as death was published by a reliable source (see WP:BDP). I believe is covered under WP:VICTIM "consistant with WP:BLP1E" without differentiating the living from the deceased. Kinda vague I think. It might need a few more words to clarify it better. Ken Tholke (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Razowzky[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Fails WP:NACTOR. Singularity42 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No references exist that I can find that establish any sort of notability. The list of appearances on the page itself shows that his parts have been pretty much all minor bit parts. Fails WP:NACTOR, per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Relatively unsourced, fails to meet notability. Idk224 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and SNGs requirements. Cavarrone (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  11:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Fusion[edit]

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

No indications that this term is in wide use for this meaning. A google search for the term "latin fusion" turns up lots of restaurants and bands/musicians, but no exercise facilities. Even the links provided are invalid or do not verify the use of the term. PROD declined by author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete No evidence of notability; no reliable sources; external links are all promotional. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unable to find RS for this usage of term. Could merge to Aerobics, but it would still be unsourced. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of RoboCop actors[edit]

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

Barely-discriminate non-notable list of people who have played a role in any of the RoboCop adaptations. Potential list includes hundreds of people. There is no real connection between an actor who played a bit part in RoboCop 2 and a an actor who voiced Concerned Woman #5 in the animated series. While a list of actors who played a particular part is relevant on the article describing that character, or a list of actors in a particular work is relevant on that page, this arbitrary list has no relevance. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - why Robocop? What's so notable about the actors in those particular movies/shows? Eddie.willers (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Orphaned article (a single inlink), unreferenced, unrelated list of names. Fails WP:NLIST. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could it have merit as a comparison table of appearances/actor changes, like the one seen at List of Police Academy cast members (among other examples)? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, but I don't think its really a fair comparison, as the Police Academy movies were produced as a series, and there is a lot of consistency in casting down the line. Several actors were in every or most-every movie, and the same actors even appeared in the live-action series, playing the same characters. RoboCop isn't a series but a franchise, and most main actors appear for only one or two productions. Even RoboCop (character) has 6 different actors between films, TV and animation. So, we could reformat and improve the article to appear like List of Police Academy cast members, but it would never be as relevant; it would still be a relatively unrelated list of people. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close--the level of sourcing almost meets WP:GNG, but the consensus is that those sources aren't in enough depth, and that the person doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Since it looks like a little more coverage will make her notable, I will happily userfy the article if anyone wants to continue working on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Dewey[edit]

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

I came across this article when an editor, IMO, mis-applied a "rewrite" tag. I have some concerns about notability and the sources. Reading through musician notability standards, I don't think this hold ups, despite having a lot of "sources," because most of them are questionable as far as establishing notability. Since this article does have sources, I'm not going to prod and decided to simply file a procedural AFD to see if this holds up. I can't find much more in the way of references than what is already listed. Quinn ░ RAIN 22:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Beat me to it. A lot of sources but nothing good passed a few local interest pieces. Not significant coverage. Didn't find better when I looked. Touring lacks coverage. Acting is minor parts. Releases not on important label. Book lacks reviews. Notability is not inherited from connection with Mute Angst Envy (band) (who may be later nominated for deletion). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Totally disagree. According to the standards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) this page meets the requirements as follows:

- Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).

Has more than two albums on the Kitchen Whore Record label, which includes on its roster Bethany Curve, a major act in the Shoegaze genre, and Marc Moreland, a former member of Wall of Voodoo.

- Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

As shown by several of the articles referenced on the page, Lisa Dewey is a highly prominent member of the San Jose, CA, music scene

- Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

While the IMDB references are not major motion pictures, she shows up on a few indie movies, which is still notable.

Oh yeah, and most of all this one:

- Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

As shown in the article, her album work includes such artists as Jackie Perez-Gratz from Amber Asylum on the cello, Michael Steele of The Bangles playing bass and Simon Raymonde of the Cocteau Twins performing bass and also producing. Also, she has worked with Lindsey Buckingham of Fleetwood Mac. I think that those artists would be considered notable by most people. Prodoom (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two notable artists having released on Kitchen whore does not make "a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". Dewey is not an ensemble and notability is not inheretid from who she worked with. Which work do you think qualifies for "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable"? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her co-writing work with Lindsey Buckingham (cited in a couple of sources and also appearing with credit on Mr. Buckingham's WP page for his latest album) should be enough, based on some of the other artists on WP that have far less. However, she obviously has worked with other artists of note. Prodoom (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain as nom Just making it clear that this was, for me, procedural in intent based on general sourcing concerns, so I don't want my AFD nomination perceived as a vote one way or the other. I can see arguments for both sides here. Quinn ░ RAIN 05:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. A few local interest pieces doesn't make an artist a "highly prominent" member of a scene. There's no significant coverage anywhere online other than what's linked in the article and it's not enough to meet the notability standard. And looking at the artist website, it doesn't look like any of the artists mentioned above are part of the ensemble, and besides this isn't a band page its an artist page. And last I checked she wasn't a member of Fleetwood Mac. It also looks like one of the main contributors of this page is the artist herself so this reeks of self promotion to me. Idk224 (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspected, self promotion. Looks like Prodoom, the only keep vote, and originator/main editor of the article, is in the band with her, per his/her MySpace page. I quote "Still playing lots o' music... bass player for Lisa Dewey & the Lotus Life, bass & guitar for Mute Angst Envy, bass for Cerebral Punishment..." Fail. Idk224 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks the coverage needed to establish notability. Some local writeups of which [1] represents the best. However, none of that establishes Dewey's prominence in the local scene to meet notability for musicians. The indie label she publishes under is actually her own label, and a few notble acts doesn't make it one of the big ones that are referred to in the notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ten Pound Hammer's link shows quite a number of sources that appear to demonstrate notability, and there is no strong alternate position on deleting. However, it may be that only one of the 2 articles here are notable, so if, after the new sources are examined, only one of the 2 companies is notable, no prejudice on a rapid new deletion discussion on the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TMX Finance[edit]

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

I'm going back and forth on this one, but the whole thing is referenced to the company's own website or its SEC filings. I tried g-news searches and got some mentions in business publications, but they're all trivial and there's nothing beyond that. I can't bring myself to believe this company is notable. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we are here, I'll bundle

TitleMax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TitleMax is a subsidiary of TMX Finance, and the TitleMax article faces the same problems: sourcing to SEC publications. The remaining cites (along with all the ones I could find) cover Titlemax's bankruptcy, a WP:SINGLEEVENT Livit⇑Eh?/What? 22:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. References in the main article are to SEC filings and to a routine notice of a bond issue. All of these are in substance self-published sources originating with the business itself. Any business involved in US securities markets in any way will have something similar, so they don't even establish minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK  21:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Matthiaspaul presents a very convincing arguement. I withdraw this nomination. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nu-Mega Technologies[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nu-Mega was an (apparently small but) influential system software house in the late 1980s and 1990s. Many system software products for DOS and Windows would have been almost impossible to develop without the help of Nu-Mega's famous SoftICE advanced kernel mode debuggers. Even though SoftICE is no longer commercially available for a long time now (AFAIK), it is still recognized as one of the most (if not the most) sophisticated x86 debugger(s) of its time. While I don't think that it is still used for Windows development any more (given thst it hasn't been adapted to integrate so tightly with newer versions of Windows), it certainly is still used for serious DOS development (where this level of integration is not required to still make it a useful tool). Several careers of industry experts in the software business started at Nu-Mega. Nu-Mega products were also covered in various books on DOS and Windows system development - I don't have the time to look up sources right now, but otherwise I should be able to find several of them even in my own library. Nu-Mega and their products were also discussed in numerous computer magazines (such as Byte, Dr Dobbs, or c't). Actually, I would like to learn more about the rise and fall of Nu-Mega and am happy that an article exists and provides at least some useful basic information. I do think, Nu-Mega was notably as an organization as per WP guidelines and I therefore oppose the proposal to delete the article. (As a sidenote, we should really put more energy into actually improving articles instead of deleting existing non-bogus articles, anyway. This is really contra-productive for the project.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NovoDynamics[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources? Presently, it doesn't have any sources. I tried a google news search, but all of the coverage listed there is PR releases. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found some sources using google like this one http://www.hightechviews.com/index.php?articleID=271, but I am not going to work on that page. Just thought the content of the page is good enough, if sources can be provided. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the above source accepts story submissions. The reliability and the independence of the source is therefore in question. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source in question is signed by associate editor. That said, the other articles and the topic choice in general suggest that this source is just promotional in its nature. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP: there is no indication that this company will ever make its ways to the schoolbooks. That said, VERUS (one of its products) is indeed likely to become notable if isn't yet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - No signficat coverage in reliable soruces. The Hightechviews article is only one source, and I am a bit dubious about it with the article reading like it was cribbed from press release material. -- Whpq (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This business's work with Arabic script OCR has gotten a small level of scholarly notice, much of which is paywalled[2][3][4]. But an article on this business's only claim to fame would be better off as an article on Arabic optical character recognition; apart from that this business has little claim to a standalone article itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. While the concerns that this is a dictionary definition that lacks sufficient sources to be expanded beyond one is reasonable, the counter that such sources do, in fact, exist is also reasonable. A merge may be reasonable if reliable sources link this term to the Great Plains exclusively, but further discussion should probably take place on the article talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyover country[edit]

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

Dicdef, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — per nom JayJayTalk to me 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom also. The "see also" articles have much more neutral tones than this thing ever will. Nate • (chatter) 04:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest transwiki'ing, but that would require sources, so delete. Feel free to ping my talk page it WP:RSs are added. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of sources is a reason to add sources, not a reason to delete. Clicking the "find sources" links above shows that there are plenty of sources to be found if someone has the time and energy to look for them and add them. And while the article is a stub, it is by no stretch of the imagination a "dicdef", much less an unexpandable one. Angr (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the original author. I created the article partly as a response to the very bi-coastal nature of news and entertainment in the U.S, and it's related to topics of media bias. I'd hoped what I wrote would be a good starting point for greater discussion, though it's disappointing that the article hasn't gained enough attention to be expanded significantly. Looking through the history, there have been cases where some content has been added, only to be removed later (rather than cleaned up and incorporated). Perhaps there should be a "bi-coastal" article, or there may be another topic where this could be merged. —Mulad (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have heard this term used for at least 15 years. the article needs to be better written, and needs references, but is a valid Wikipedia article.Debbie W. 03:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a topic, it is covered in detail with this entry in the Encyclopedia of the Great Plains which shows the topic is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Great Plains as a synonym, per the excellent source found by Whpq. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Although I !voted keep, I'm not adverse to a merge to Great Plains. -- Whpq (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cocktail (MVVM framework)[edit]

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

Non notable software - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. Google searching is hard based on the common name, but searches for "Cocktail Silverlight" or "Cocktail Framework" find nothing in RSes. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to keep Keep this topic. Would third-part sources be sufficient to establish significant coverage? Cocktail was launched as product only today, so it may take some time before articles and blog posts show up in Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdeaBlade (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third party sources are necessary to establish notability, correct. They don't have to be available online, but can be any kind of reliable third-party newspaper, magazine, journal, etc. They have to conform to WP:RS, and blog posts don't satisfy that requirement. But if nothing has been written yet then you should wait until this received third-party coverage in multiple sources before writing the article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MuleSource[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MuleSoft[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:B2B: "a provider of software, support, and services for open source service oriented architecture (SOA) infrastructure software" [sic]. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drew_University#Athletics. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Rangers baseball[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It is a Division III college baseball team with questionable notability (I couldn't find anything on Google worth using to defend this program). The consensus on college sports teams is that Division I programs in football, basketball and baseball are more/less inherently notable, but any division below that must prove their notability, and this one doesn't. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed on the GNG interpretation of Division II and III athletic teams (though in my opinion programs as a whole, say, Drew Rangers, are notable). I'd also throw men's hockey into the mix of inherently notable Division I programs, though the scope of that sport is certainly more limited. Kithira (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Drew University has a number of Division III sport teams, and none of them other than baseball have their own article. I don't really think that the Drew University baseball team meets Wikipedia's notability standards.Debbie W. 12:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That is actually a very valid option. Bzweebl has not indicated that merging is being advocated so there is no attribution history to worry about. -- Whpq (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Drew University Athletics section. -- Whpq (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we had a Drew Rangers article I'd support a merge to there, but adding it in to the main uni article I'm not a fan of. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that merger is a bad idea. Based on limited coverage of athletics in the current Drew University article, merger will give an undue weight to baseball over other sports at Drew University.Debbie W.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was That was easy. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deck stains[edit]

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

Dicdef; one user with apparent WP:OWN issues keeps restoring how-to instructions. I can't see this being anymore than a dicdef — the only sources I found were sites selling deck stains. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Wood stain, which is a notable object. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wood stain per Reaper. The "Deck stains" article is just a second article about what is essentially the exact same topic. --Chris (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 00:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modo (software)[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lot of news coverage to sort through. Tagging this for help finding them. Dream Focus 22:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 22:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [5] Many sources cover the software and the company. Dream Focus 16:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Topic has received significant coverage in trustworthy, reliable sources with editorial integrity:
  • Cohen, Peter (June 10, 2005). "Luxology modo ready for Intel switch". Macworld.com. Retrieved February 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  • Cohen, Peter (October 8, 2007). "Luxology licenses Pixar graphics tech". Macworld.com. Retrieved February 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  • Sheridan Perry, Todd (August 11, 2008). "Luxology's Modo 302". Animation Magazine. Retrieved February 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 00:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luxology[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, it seems there's not a lot of interest in this page. I created the stub almost four years ago (because several computer graphics articles had dead links pointing to it) and nobody bothered to fill it in with more info, so it didn't prove very useful. Perhaps it's better to just put it out of its misery.--MCBastos (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot of news results for them, mostly just talking about them licensing something, or about their software which gets great coverage. I see you also nominated modo (software). It has ample and obvious coverage. Dream Focus 21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination perplexes me. I got piles of coverage at MacWorld and Gamasutra and I didn't try very hard. Methinks you should just withdraw the nomination, ditto for the modo article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [10] Many sources cover the software and the company. Dream Focus 16:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are much stronger sources you could cite than that one Dream.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you see any, add them. A lot of results to read through. Dream Focus 23:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep possible merge The following sources seem to establish notability pretty well: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Now, the last is a review of the product, but what makes it significant is that it is a rave review of the product and company from someone that also appears to be a big player in the biz. Now, that said, it seems there should really only be one independent article so a merge is likely in order. I think, given that the company itself is mentioned often, the article on modo should be merged here rather than this article being merged there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted (A7) and redirected Alexf(talk) 09:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ittrium[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete& Redirect- to Yttrium, as a soundex match. Dru of Id (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Books[edit]

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

Still no indication of notability. Article created by the company founder has no substantial WP:reliable sources. Previous afd closed as no consensus so hopefully this time a proper consensus can be found. noq (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is Clear Books notable accounting software? Applying the definition of "notable" - I believe Clear Books is.

  • "Significant coverage": SaaS analysts, HMRC, data.gov.uk, Telegraph article, PC Advisor article, Institute of Certified Bookkeepers
  • "Reliable" Independents analysts, government websites, recognised media publications and an independent bookkeeping body
  • "Sources" The sources are secondary
  • "Independent of the subject" All the references provided have not been written by anyone at Clear Books
  • "Presumed" Clear Books is accounting software and therefore should be eligible to be listed as accounting software

--TimFouracre (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unfortunately, this company hasn't yet reached the levels of notability required for this encyclopedia. User:TimFouracre misunderstands the criteria. The company should receive significant coverage (ie, not just trivial mentions) in reliable sources that address the company specifically. It isn't enough to simply be a company, you have to be a notable company. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dylan - thanks for the comments. Above I have tried to identify evidence that supports each area of notability as defined by wikipedia. Please can you specifically discount the references I have alluded to as I would argue that SaaS industry analysts, HMRC, government website, Telegraph, PC Advisor and ICB are both "Significant coverage" and "Reliable". --TimFouracre (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I can't access the first reference so I'll have to discount that for now. Ref 2 (AccMan) and Ref 3 (Diversity) are blogs; blogs aren't reliable sources. Ref.4 is a reliable source, but I'd question whether it is about Clear Books; I'd say it's about banking, and trivially mentions Clear Books. References 5 & 6 (Companies House and HMRC) only prove that the company exists, not that it's notable. Like I said, it isn't enough to just exist. You should carefully read WP:RS and WP:Notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the second reference the industry analyst is also used as a reference in the following wikipedia articles that I could find EditGrid, InniAccounts and Mark_Lee_(British_author_and_speaker). Therefore I would argue that this source is reliable as he has been used as a reference in other wikipedia articles.
The second industry analyst is also used as a reference in the following wikipedia articles Outright and Salesforce.com. Therefore I would again argue that this source is reliable.
Reference 4 you agree is reliable. The point of this reference was to support the number of customers Clear Books has i.e. 3,000 small businesses as referenced in the article by an agreed reliable source.
References 5 and 6 are from extremely reliable resources HMRC and data.gov.uk and prove that Clear Books is accounting software. Combined with the other sources there is a strong rounded argument that Clear Books is notable accounting software.--TimFouracre (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a Wikipedia article does not automatically make a reliable source - I have not found anything about how the ICB conducts its software reviews and it seems to hide them on its website. The link currently does not work properly anyway. Being used as part of a much larger number of references does not mean that the reference was considered as establishing notability. Being used in article that could arguable also be nominated for deletion does not establish notability. Showing existence does not show notability. And reference 4 while being a reliable source is as has been noted not significant coverage - the article is about banking and an aside with the number of customers claimed is not enough to make it notable. noq (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am making the assumption that if an organisation/person is listed or used elsewhere in wikipedia then it is proven as reliable as it has passed the review process - I believe that is a fair assumption to make. By that token I maintain that Institute of Certified Bookkeepers, the two SaaS industry analysts who are both referenced in several other wikipedia articles, Telegraph, HMRC, data.gov.uk are all reliable. At least two of these sources also have significant coverage which you must agree with? (and I would argue 3 of them do). The remaining reliable references provide additional support to notability in general. Fame, importance, or popularity may enhance the acceptability for notability. 3,000 businesses using Clear Books and 4,000 followers on twitter should therefore help support the case. Here is another example of Clear Books getting coverage in a notable publication PCAdvisor. Clear Books has also been reviewed in the December 2011 print version of .net_(magazine) although this is not online as yet.--TimFouracre (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out before that is not a safe assumption. The PC Advisor article seems to be all quotes from you. Wikipedia does not exist to help you promote your company so just adding links to your own quotes does not establish notability. noq (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that Institute of Certified Bookkeepers, the two SaaS industry analysts who are both referenced in several other wikipedia articles, Telegraph, HMRC, data gov uk are all reliable. I also maintain that at least two of the sources have significant coverage.--TimFouracre (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD § G4/G11/A7 (pick any): multiple times deleted article with nothing indicating long term impact on history of humanity or at least basic notability. The references in the article do the good job of proving that this company shouldn't have an article: (1) a promotional in tone review of company's product from a organization earning on serving indiscriminate collection of bookkeeping resources, (2) blog, (3) blog, (4) an article with side mention of the company, (5) list entry and (6) directory item: nothing usable for WP:GNG purposes, needless to say about WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is incorrect to request the article is deleted because it has been deleted multiple times in the past. Obviously with time the accounting software has become more notable and continues to gain sources to support its notability. The current version of the article is different from the one that was most recently put up for deletion with no consensus reached. It is also completely different to the articles deleted 2 or 3 years ago when the accounting software was very new and not supported by any sources. Some of the sources may not prove notability in their own right, but as a collection I believe they all help support the argument for notability. I would suggest that blogs should not be discounted per Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources. (2) and (3) Both the blogs are by recognised industry analysts who are also used as references elsewhere in wikipedia. (4) Supports the number of businesses using the accounting software. (1), (5) and (6) from very reliable resources support that Clear Books is accounting software and taken in conjunction with (2), (3) and (4) Clear Books is notable accounting software. --TimFouracre (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment references that establish existence - which is not being questioned do not add to notability - you could have hundreds of directory entries but that does not make you any more notable. noq (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two references you refer to support the Clear_Books#Integrations section. Maybe those two specific references do not show notability but they are helpful references for that section of the article. --TimFouracre (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for at last recognising they do not help claims to notability. noq (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I maintain that in their own right those two specific references do not establish notability. However, they are useful references for the section of the article which you must agree with? They are also reliable sources, which you must agree with also, and therefore contribute to notability in general. --TimFouracre (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note about the new references: (1) simplybusiness ends with link for special pries for readers, (2) PC Advisor presents a followup to hot story, lacking in-depth information about the subject, (3) CloudAve – another blog and (4) Cambridge Judge Business School – a niche market research with no in-depth coverage about the topic; one can have such references for any B2B software. So nothing have changed in fact. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding new references (0) you haven't referred to .net magazine (1) your point doesn't refer to whether the article is notable or not. (2) it's a story covered by a reliable source supporting that Clear Books is notable accounting software. (3) As I've mentioned before blogs cannot be discounted as sources per wikipedia guidance. Indeed CloudAve has been used as a source numerous times in wikipedia Google Results (4) Cambridge Judge Business School is indeed a niche market research because online accounting software is a new niche market. It's the only comparison report out there on online accounting software in the UK. --TimFouracre (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The PC advisor article it a report on your publicity stunt not that it thinks your company is notable. And the Cambridge report you commissioned is hardly independent = it would not exist if you had not paid for it. noq (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence that Clear Books paid for the accounting software comparison report? The Cambridge Judge Business School is an academic institution, part of University of Cambridge - they are not commissioned to take on projects and the students are certainly not paid to do so.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Clear Books article has been updated with new references to add further support that Clear Books is notable accounting software.--TimFouracre (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no need to repeat Keep - that is noted the first time. The cloudave links are obviously and admit to be from press releases from YOU. I notice that nobody has argued in your favour in either this or the previous afd - they all point out the same things which you just dismiss and rehash the same arguments noq (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I understand, it is not a matter of how many people argue one way or the other but the merits of the points put forward. I have added references from a Cambridge University report, PC Adviser, 2 references from CloudAve, a review in .Net Magazine and a review by Simply Business.--TimFouracre (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, the number of votes doesn't mean as much as the rationales. So, please, stop voting multiple times. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for putting the Keeps multiple times. I wasn't aware that was the etiquette. --TimFouracre (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As stated previously, rehashed press releases from you and studies commissioned by you do not help establish notability. noq (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are agreed that Clear Books is accounting software i.e. there is existence. I maintain that from the range of references Clear Books is also notable accounting software. There are links to numerous reliable third party sources. On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.--TimFouracre (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you feel that rehashed press releases and blogs should be enough but Wikipedia does not. You wish to promote your company does not make it notable. noq (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
noq unfortunately, your criticism of the article is focussed on the fact that I created it, rather than its cotent. I could have hidden behind an alias, but instead, I have been totally honest and used my real name. All I have done is present the facts and link to independent sources. Twice, you have put Clear Books forward for deletion. My wish is not to promote any company, it is to establish that Clear Books is notable accounting software. We agree that it is accounting software and I still stand by the fact that based on the numerous sources, it is notable accounting software. It is one of only a handful of new, online accounting software systems in the UK which makes it notable in its own right.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well this edit from you seems to imply you instigated the report even if you did not pay for it - I thought the original wording was commissioned but it seems I was mistaken. I am arguing against you because of the content and urging you to step back because you are too close to evaluate it properly. Looking at this implies your view that existence is the same as notability. Your desire to list your company on Wikipedia is not the same as it should be listed on Wikipedia. noq (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense to stick to debating the current article in its current form rather than historic edits. I am promoting the inclusion of Clear Books in wikipedia because it is notable online accounting software as supported by numerous reliable sources.--TimFouracre (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:SPAM about the way other editors are going to react on your comment. Your honesty on your identity is really appreciated, but writing articles about own company or product is discouraged on Wikipedia for a good reason. If you poses good faith belief of your company and software being notable, better wait for it to get covered by uninvolved editor (you could speed up this process by submitting request to WP:AFC) and help him with sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Czarkoff - all I ask though is read the article Clear Books again and then say whether you think it is biased or written from such a view. All references are independently sourced.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did that (you saw I evaluated the additional sources) and confirmed my initial vied – I still believe this article should be speedy deleted with multiple matching criteria. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Czarkoff, thanks for the feedback. I still believe that in totality the references in the article support notability. I would appreciate your views on each of the references if you think otherwise . --TimFouracre (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no press releases referenced in the Clear Books article. It is also not clear who the small-audience trade publications you refer to are. Please can you debate all of the 11 references made in the Clear Books article as opposed to Google News searches.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but there's no point repeating what everybody else has already told you about them. Notability is not about counting coup; it's about what makes this product stand out among the many other accounting software packages that gives it the kind of lasting significance in history, technology, or culture that makes it a subject you'd expect to have an article devoted to itself in an encyclopedia. This is what I am not seeing here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Clear Books different from other accounting software such as Quick Books or The Sage Group? The key difference is that traditional accounting software is accessed on the dektop it is installed on whereas Clear Books is online accounting software and accessible from the web. This is a technological advance in the delivery method for accounting software. What makes Clear Books stand out backed up by the listed references? First ever online accounting software comparison report, expenses scandal gesture, Telegraph article seeking bank loan, only accounting software listed with data.gov.uk for its integration with Companies House, coverage by industry analysts announcing customer numbers.--TimFouracre (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dahowlett I suspect the moderators are suspicious and perhaps taking a harder line than might be usual because the entry was originated by the company's CEO. Where I have difficulty comes in two areas: 1. the entry as currently constructed is unbalanced since it does not give any weight to some of the controversies surrounding the company. 2. TimFouracre argument that sources such as my own at AccMan should not be discounted seems reasonable. The blanket notion that blogs are not considered reliable sources is not quite correct. The [sources guldelines state] "are largely not acceptable" leaves room for blog sources to be acceptable within certain parameters. And he is right to state that AccMan as a Wikipedia source has been used in the past on a number of occasions as has Diversity. It is a matter of moderator judgment and perhaps further inquiry as to whether a specific source article is one that can be considered verifiable but that should not of itself amount to blanket discounting of the source. If those issues can be addressed then I would be in favour of the entry being kept.Dahowlett (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. I'm not going to rehash the discussion of the sourcing but I agree with the analysis from those advocating deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia without Clear Books in is leaving a gap in the knowledge and ability to research accounting software. Someone using Wikipedia to research accounting software will be able to research the history of desktop based accounting software such as The Sage Group and QuickBooks, but when they try and find out more about the cloud accounting software packages that business owners are increasingly switching to, they’re not going to find all the facts. There is a whole movement against article deletion in Wikipedia as deletionism goes against the premise of Wikipedia: “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.” — Jimmy Wales, The founder of Wikipedia. --TimFouracre (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. TimFouracre (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note for closing admin: given the activity of select members of Wikipedia community in this and previous AfD I would suggest salting the name to ensure that next version of the article will go through WP:AFC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AFD was closed on 00:10, 23 January 2012 as "no consensus". If this article is deleted this time, do you think the same guy will actually try to recreate it? Dream Focus 13:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that it is highly probable. And I see no rationale behind "no consensus" closure of the previous AfD with both votes and arguments clearly being on "delete" side. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incredible no consensus close. The only keep vote was by the founder of the company. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage of them and their activities found in a major newspaper, The Daily Telegraph[21]. I also found mention of their activities at PC Advisor (magazine) [22] which is also a reliable source. With 1,610 Google news archive search results, its hard to sort through and find which ones might give coverage to them. Dream Focus 13:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do these sources say about the topic of the article? After reading them I have no answer. Both qualify for passing mention of the software, which can be reviewed in depth as required to establish notability by our guidelines. Still no such review ever stated, even by TimFouracre. That said, how can a company with no notable products (novel technologies, means of marketing, etc.) be notable? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources supplied in-article and in this discussion are either trivial, sourced to trivial publications, or the result of (admittedly very clever) PR ploys like offering the software to scandal-ridden legislators. Additionally, it is clear to me that the previous AfD should have resulted in delete, given that the only person offering a keep argument was, in fact, the founder of the company. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have contacted the journalist who wrote the .Net Magazine Dec 2011 print article on accounting applications which included a section on Clear Books. I don't know why the article isn't online but he has indicated he will be able to provide at least a PDF version of the article. I believe this will be a notable reference and I will link to it as soon as I have a copy.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this source reviews in depth the software, it would be one of several sources needed. In plain English: not enough yet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source found, changed !vote above to "keep":
—Northamerica1000(talk) 22:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The site builds indiscriminate collection of reviews, with each of them lacking in-depth review of anything. Just doesn't count for purpose of establishing notability. The author's description also leaves at least mixed impression: "Raju Shanbhag is a Bangalore-based writer who has worked in various fields such as advertising" [sic]. Furthermore, this source doesn't have editorial oversight for "contributors'" submission, so it isn't reliable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The source listed above is an article, not a review. It appears that Financial Tech Spotlight does have editorial oversight regarding what they choose to publish, or conversely, don't publish. It's not like a blog site where anything is automatically posted. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually search for any mention of editorial oversight, and all I found is an oversight of submissions via web form. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That source and article are highly suspect. The article reads exactly like a press release -- unless we are to think that "landing a financing deal from key strategic investors for an undisclosed sum" (note how neither the investors nor the sum is mentioned -- this could, for all the article mentions, be a $1,000 loan from the founder's father-in-law) is newsworthy. After this overwhelmingly vague excuse for an article, the article promptly stops discussing the newsworthy financing deal altogether and spends the rest of its run concerned with what I'd call boilerplate PR fluff (e.g. the company is launching a new "viral website", the founder says the software is awesome and growing, etc.). Additionally, reading other submissions by this "columnist" don't tend to give much confidence that he does anything but write unattributed PR pieces. For example: [23], [24], [25]. Note, I picked those at random from his contributions; they all follow identical structure and style. I find it very hard to believe that this source is reliable and that this columnist is not being compensated for his columns. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the reliability of the source itself (Financial Tech Spotlight) is in question, and whether or not the article (Clear Books Announces Financing Deal to Improve SaaS Online Accounting Software) is essentially a rewrite of a press release. Retaining my "keep" !vote based upon coverage in The Telegraph, the PC Advisor article and the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers Software Review, which combined appears to qualify this topic as just meeting WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources do not demonstrate notability, nor do they even hint it may be in the future. Coverage (as pointed out above) has the look and feel of a well oiled PR operation and not coverage steaming form actual real world notability. Mtking (edits) 03:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest that sources do not even hint at notability in the future is in my opinion an unreasonable position to take. The sources have shown the growth over a couple of years to 3,000 customers (as supported most recently by the Telegraph article). Should this growth rate continue then there is a strong argument that the accounting software will become increasingly notable. Currently a documented 3,000 businesses rely on Clear Books every day to run their business, do their bookkeeping and maintain their accounts. The customers of those 3,000 businesses (i.e. hundreds of thousands of businesses and people) will consequently be invoiced through Clear Books. If these numbers continue to increase then the coverage and sources to further support the notability of this online accounting software are likely to increase.--TimFouracre (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User numbers, customers or reviews are no indication of notability, what I and others look for are people independently writing about this product, not what coverage the company can get by using press releases or PR tactics. This not only demonstrates a products notability, but is needed for good and well sourced article, because without them you have to use self sourced material. Mtking (edits) 05:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. Are you honestly saying that all the 11 references in Clear Books fail this test?--TimFouracre (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(This reference requires a registered account). It only mentions Clear Books twice, the first to say that "The poll (is) by accounting software company Clear Books" and the second that "Tim Fouracre, managing director of Clear Books, said" something about the survey and politicians. This is not significant coverage of the company, just in-passing mentions. Diego (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, another of your press releases has been published. noq (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Books did a survey that was taken by more than 50,000 people in the end in the run up to the 2010 general election. The results were published on the Clear Books website and news sources picked up on it. You can't put down a survey taken by 50,000 independent, autonomous people as advertorial content. Clear Books simply presented the findings. --TimFouracre (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that this is advertorial, only that the source doesn't say anything about the Clear Books company itself so it doesn't establish notability. Diego (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what exactly does this link says about Clear Books' notability? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open question to those putting Clear Books article up for deletion. Are you improving Wikipedia by requesting that Clear Books accounting software is now removed? If not then the first rule of Wikipedia suggests you should ignore all other rules. The meaning of that is outlined here: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. I would argue that by deleting this article you are requesting that information about a recognised accounting software (as supported by references) is being removed from Wikipedia, which is not an improvement.--TimFouracre (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, you are running up against institutional rules that are relatively hardened at Wikipedia in 2012. Your argument would be well received by many editors at Wikipedia who rarely are seen in deletion discussions, as well as many outside wikipedia. See this great 2007 post by Andrew Lih:[26]. I don't agree with some of these policies we now have, but I work within them to the best of my ability to save worthwhile content. Literally if there were two mainstream newspaper profiles articles of you/the company from a regional newspaper, you'd probably make it.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really interesting article and got me thinking along the same lines. If I was one of the 3,000+ businesses using Clear Books and I wanted to find out a bit more about Clear Books on Wikipedia then if this article gets deleted, I would get a blank just like Andrew Lih got a blank on Michael Getler.--TimFouracre (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improving greatly. More questions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair enough if that's your viewpoint, however, some justification as to why deletion is an improvement would be appreciated. In my opinion you are advocating removing knowledge about this particular cloud based accounting software from Wikipedia. --TimFouracre (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no doubt that your software is useful, saves some time (and probably money, I don't know UK accounting software market at all) and deserves some publicity. I would be glad to see every article here having such a dedicated editor, willing to make the article better and ready to make changes when needed. Still, as I stated before, your company doesn't meet the criteria of notability, as all the sources have major defects. Apart from this issue, I would be very comfortable with voting keep, but breaking the notability policies expose the whole Wikipedia to the risk of becoming a mean of promotion, which is specifically dangerous in the field of companies and commercial products. If your article is kept, all the bogus references we have there will become the acceptable minimum, thus lowering the notability bar and actually more exposing Wikipedia to the risk I mentioned above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words but therein lies a very significant point. In the Clear Books article there are references to industry analysts, commentators and organisations who do know the industry and they are linking to and writing about Clear Books, in my opinion. --TimFouracre (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make things a bit clearer: I am an experienced programmer and a long time OpenBSD user and a regular contributor to one of the sources generally considered reliable on Wikipedia. Can my blog be considered a reliable source for OpenBSD article? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a recognised industry expert in your field? If yes, then yes. If no, then no. Here's an example of a blog used for references on Wikipedia JoelOnSoftware--TimFouracre (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the statement that someone is a recognized expert, should be proved by numerous (as opposed to just multiple) references to different reliable sources saying so. Actually, nearly every blogger has a set of links where his opinion is discussed (as opposed to the topic of opinion). I have several dozens of such links, though it doesn't make me a recognized expert. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are digressing a little here because the issue is not about you and your blog, however, if you contacted any online accounting software vendor and asked them to list 5 recognised cloud analysts, the sources listed in the Clear Books article would, imo, be named. Would you be in your field? If so, then I would say your blog should be a reference in its field.--TimFouracre (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If these blogs are only recognized by ISVs, they are nowhere close to be reliable sources. You are putting the bar too low: the idea was that recognized experts are people, whose reputation is higher then that of anyone else in the field. Simply put: you may consider a person to be an expert only if his opinion is credible enough to discard the opinions of reliable sources. Given the size of accounting software ecosystem there can't be experts in the field (in the sense of WP:SPS) at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of expert seems strange as by your definition only one person can ever be an expert in the field i.e. reputation higher than anyone else. If you are serious about debating this article fairly then research who the experts are in the field and let us know your findings rather than just, out of hand, refuting that the suggested industry analysts are indeed the experts in the field.--TimFouracre (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, there is no expert in the field of bookkeeping software. I'm not convinced there is theoretical possibility that there would ever be at least one expert in such field. Any more clarifications I can help with? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep N.B. I have an interest as a shareholder in the company that has invested in Clearbooks. My view is the article should be kept on the strength of the independant press coverage which has to be taken in the context of the fact the company is still small and growing. The main problem with the cited objections is that they appear to be coming from editors who appear to be unable to assume good faith. Several have made personal attacks on TimFouracre and don't really have any place in the debate. It is a great shame to see this I wish they would focus on the substantive issue of establishing notability through evidence and debate rather than making cynical commentary which goes against the spirit of wikipedia. Brenmcl (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Brenmcl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Examples? As of now, I see no single reference that could be used for establishing notability. If the article's author wasn't that vocal, this article would be deleted by now. Topics of many articles deleted in AfD have by far better coverage (eg. at least one source that may be considered reliable). That said, the notability of companies is not the subject of WP:GNG, but of WP:NCORP instead, and this article by far is short of references required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to present lack of supporting material within sources. Question: if all you had was the sources listed, could you write an article that would pass notability on this subject? Personally no, when half are simply interviews with MD about business not the subject, and most of the rest are notable mentions in a list of other similar suppliers. The PR spin of offering MPs free software was a great advertorial, but doesn't count as a reliable source. Good debate, and well batted TimFouracre, but personally doesn't presently pass WP:NOTAB. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems the creator and primary defender of the article has misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. My understanding is: "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". Taking each of the sources in the article:
Daily Express. Reliable source, but not significant coverage. The article is about starting a business not Clear books.
HMRC. Merely a mention of the product. Not significant coverage.
data.gov.uk. One sentence isn't considered significant coverage
Granted these three do not show notability due to significant coverage. The latter 2 are still useful references in the context of the article.
"CloudAve". Significant coverage, but not a reliable source. Source is a blog.
"ClearBooks: betting for profit?". - Blog. not reliable source.
Diversity limited. Blog. not reliable source.
Each of these 3 'blogs' are used as references on other Wikipedia articles as mentioned previously. Additionally, blogs cannot be dismissed as a reference out of hand Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources. As these are articles by industry analysts on cloud accounting I would suggest they are valid blogs in this context.
Institute of Certified Bookkeepers. Significant coverage, unlikely to be reliable source, as it is not, per WP:RS, either a scholarly publication or from a news organisation. Possibly debatable.
I would argue it is reliable. It has a membership of 150k. Are we seriously suggesting that this huge bookkeeping organisation is reviewing accounting software and is not reliable?
"UK Accounting Software Market Report". Published only on the company's website. Not independent coverage
The article is independent coverage as it was not written by Clear Books. It is simply hosted on the Clear Books website to provide access to it.
The Telegraph. - insufficient coverage. the article is not *about* Clear books.
The article is about Clear Books' failure to get a bank loan. Maybe Clear Books article should be updated to say Clear Books failed to get a bank loan from Barclays and then it would pass your criteria? In its current form the source is used as a reference for the number of customers the software has i.e. 3,000.
Simply Business. "The people at Clear Books have kindly given Simply Business readers the opportunity to try their software at a heavily reduced rate." Sorry, not independent.
Clear Books was approached after the article was written and asked if a discount could be provided. I maintain that is independent, but clearly a judgement call on whether you believe that the discount came before or after.
Financial Tech Spotlight. Not comfortable with this. Similar to PC advisor, but I'm not familiar with the source, and it is far too much "Clear Books say x" rather than being something which has involved a degree of fact checking.
"Clear Books gives MPs free accounting software". PC Advisor. I'm going to say, tentatively, yes to this one. Reliable source (news organisation), significant coverage (*about* Clear Books). I recognise concerns that it's just a recycled press release, but its one in which a recognised magazine has seen fit to post.
So two tentative passes here. In summary I appreciate you taking the time to go through each reference which is exactly what was needed. I do believe that some of the references have been overlooked in terms of their notability.--TimFouracre (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the creator's frustrations in seeing some of his competitors listed on here, but intentionally or not, he appears to have failed to grasp the way Wikipedia actually works and the standards that are applied to determining whether articles have a place here. Wikipedia is not a directory. I'd love to have my business listed on here, but it's not going to happen. (yet.)
Some examples of good sources for verifying notability of companies:
[27] - well known news organisation, article is ABOUT the company, doesn't just mention it in passing.
[28] - well known tech source, article is ABOUT the company. 84.9.58.151 (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A mention in techcrunch that proves once again that it exists and nothing else. We know it exsts we don;t need more references to prove that. And a list of blog entries. Techfluff part of newspepper which is an internet marketing and PR firm, Killerstartups a "user driven internet startups community", entrepeneurship interviews a random blog, nmqb a blog from a small company. noq (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And all are too short. The policy requires in-depth review, this software can be reviewed in depth, just no reliable sources consider it notable enough. Also, I would note that references about the software won't help to establish notability of company, and vice verse. As of now, we have nothing to establish notability of any of these. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments – These are NOT !votes)
As for a week now there is nothing new in this discussion, it seems to be a good idea to summarize the results for closing admin:

  • Keep: the useful software that has some blog coverage, some reviews by market research firms and professional associations. Voters: author (founder of the company in question), 2 SPAs and 2 uninvolved editors.
  • Delete: neither of sources satisfies the WP:IRS guideline, nearly all are passing mentions, with the rest of them being either unambiguous advertising or entry in the indiscriminate collection; the article is about company, but most sources are about product. Voters: 8 uninvolved editors in this AfD, 1 in previous (recent enough to count).

The standing remains since the first day of this AfD with only numerical changes in votes. WP:Article Rescue Squadron was invited. No new arguments, no convincing evidence. Though, due to the activity of the author of the article, this AfD will run until stopped. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that a summary by the main protagonist for delete vote provides an independent or fair summary as there is a bias towards delete. For example, the Clear Books article has now been tidied up by someone independent of Clear Books. It also has more references than the first time it was put up for AfD and indeed more references as a result of this second AfD. --TimFouracre (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage in The Telegraph, the PC Advisor article and the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers Software Review are sufficient for me to have this article kept as notable and having reliable sources. That the article is also useful for those considering buying the software is considered irrelevant by current Wikipedia standards, but it is certainly one reason that readers and not just the editors come to Wikipedia to look something up. Administrators are free to disregard that statement, and deletion advocates may criticize me for saying it, but it is inescapable that some people only read Wikipedia when they want useful and practical advice on a purchase. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a problem, then of solution: you are trying to put Wikipedia's reputation for this company. FWIW, it is a very bad idea, given the quality of references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Czarkoff, I feel you are treating the references unfairly. There are now a few people, besides me, who have said enough of the references are reasonable for notability. I was looking at a recent AfD you were involved in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apollo_(software) where you are quoted as saying "the sources this article has are not as good as one may generally expects" yet you changed your mind from a Delete to a Keep vote. That sounds like a contradiction with your statement above. You also said "in the end this article has a devoted editor who will gradually improve it" Aren't we in exactly the same situation here?--TimFouracre (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources there were just not as dramatically bad as these. That article was about software and the sources were about software, and they were extensive, not promotional and implying notability, which is absolutely not the case here. I indeed have the strong feelings against this article and these sources, as most of them are either side mention or just plain spam. Actually both this article and this discussion should be preserved somewhere as an example of what should be deleted per WP:NOT and WP:N. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is absurd to say that Wikipedia's reputation rubs off on any particular article, and people who come to Wikipedia for useful information can look at the sources for themselves. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per your logic Wikipedia should have an entry on every commercial product ever released – readers might want to investigate it. Thus either you have some reasons to believe that ClearBooks stand out from the list of other products or you just don't like notability guideline. Which one is the case? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Czarkoff, here's that .Net Magazine reference (taken with iPhone) full page and Clear Books section. I don't know why the article isn't online but it is issue 222, December 2011, page 29. If you can't make out the text I can type it up which should help make it easier to read.--TimFouracre (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either this review makes notable all these pieces of software (why?) or none of them. Given that our guidelines require in-depth review, which is not the case here. And finally this has nothing to deal with notability of this article, as it doesn't mention the company at all! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TimFouracre, the best you can do now is just accept that your company isn't notable and go to WP:AFC to create article about the software called ClearBooks. If you want, I can help with the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jackson (artist)[edit]

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

Only media coverage is local and limited in scope. Doesn't seem to be notable or have lasting relevance. Arbor8 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article doesn't currently mention the thing for which Jackson is best known--his original design for the Missouri State Quarter was rejected by the U.S. Mint for suspect reasons, leading to a high-profile controversy that got quite a bit of play both in Missouri and nationally (see this Washington Post article as reprinted in the Los Angeles Times). Add that to his evident local fame in Missouri, and I'd be inclined to think he passes the notability test. Article needs some improvements, though.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per significant coverage in reliable sources. Coverage in larger news media outlets (LA Times) further qualifies this topic's notability.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 21:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crownpeak[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funtastic, Inc.[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Con DanDan[edit]

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

Autobiography of a seemingly 12-year old claiming to be a great artist that has won multiple awards. No ghits worth mentioning. Fails WP:MUSIC and more importantly BLP. See also his self-created page List of awards and nominations received by Con DanDan Alexf(talk) 18:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - cursory Googling brings up zilch except the Wiki articles. Total fail. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BLP, and let me note that I have met thousands of talented young musicians (most are pianists), who don't have Wikipedia articles, who are much more talented than this individual. Why does he need a Wikipedia article? --Bmusician 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The article claims that he is "one of the most successful artists of Cyprus and Greece", that he topped the charts, and that he won 6 MTV Greece awards. But when I search his name on the MTV Greece website, there are no hits. Indeed, I'm able to verify any of these claims. The article seems to fail WP:V; it could perhaps be characterized as blatant misinformation. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aptly named musician. But NN. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Lack sufficient WP:RS to satisfy WP:BIO, WP:BAND, or even WP:RS … also WP:COI/WP:AUTO issues … recommend WP:SALT as this is third incarnation after two previous speedy deletions. Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.155 (talk · contribs) 10:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and salt per 71.166.140.155. Clear conflict of interest (see edit history), spam ("his voice is going to sell albums"), probably a hoax ("Daniel fell in love with Lady Gaga", "On MTV Greece awards he won 6 awards from 9 nominations") as well. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Data Expedition[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the original author of the article and a principal of the subject company. I would like to better understand the procedures and criteria involved in this process. I have read AfD, DELPRO, and Notability and respect the basic principles and necessity of these criteria. I am trying to understand exactly where the line is drawn.
With respect to the general notability guidelines, the company is the primary subject of several referenced articles in independent publications. In addition, this more recent publication makes significant mention.
It appears that people do regularly search for "Data Expedition" on Wikipedia, so I believe the article is of interest, but I am unsure of whether that is a useful criteria. I believe the subject is at least as notable as many other software companies which are currently listed in Wikipedia and that the article demonstrates that notability better than most others listed in list of Software-related deletion discussions. But again I am unsure of whether such a comparison is useful.
What changes or evidence might allow the article to persist? If it is deemed insufficient and deleted, does that raise the bar for evidence needed to reinstate the article in the future? Is there an intermediate step which would allow the article to return when the subject receives more coverage? Sbnoble —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for your contributions, User:Sbnoble, and we appreciate your revealing your interest. As Wikipedians, we'd prefer to see those connected to a company admit their connection. If you haven't already read Conflict of Interest, I'd recommend you doing so. As to your specific questions, the basic criteria for inclusion can be found at WP:GNG and WP:V (see also WP:IRS); the supplemental guideline which applies in this case is WP:COMPANY. I'm not sure I can answer for consensus but I'd say generally yes, that deletion generally raises the bar for later inclusion. The intermediate step is what we call WP:Userfication, a removal of all material to a userspace sandbox where the work to date can be preserved and further growth and sourcing can be applied. If you request userfication from the closing administrator, especially after revealing your interest, you may well find a willing ally. BTW, you could at any point prior to deletion copy the contents of the page to your own sandbox, say User:Sbnoble/sandbox, and then you'd be able to pursue page development even if the pagespace were deleted. To summarize, thanks for admitting your involvement (it speaks well of you as an editor and has earned you some respect, at least from myself); IMHO the best thing an involved party can do is source the heck out of their page, using multiple independent and reliable sources. Further, one can userfy a deleted page to continue development even after deletion. If I can be of further help, please feel free to call on me on my talk page. BusterD (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GiantSnowman does mention that the subject played for the top team in a professioanl league, which some might argue is an indicator of notability, but the consensus is that the claim is fairly weak since it was a cup game against an amateur team. Since NFOOTBALL is a guideline, not a policy, I see no reason to criticize the consensus here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pontus Johannesson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Source: Swedish FA Fredde (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet either of the relevant notability criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to Murder of Darell Lunsford. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Lunsford[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Known essentially only for his death. Does not go beyond WP:ONEVENT. (Note: PROD was contested without explanation by an account that has since been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet created to evade a block on the creator of the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Murder of Darell Lunsford, as I think has been done previously for articles about otherwise non-notable murder victims. I think that the references already found in the article, while they need to be reformatted, easily disprove the assertion that there is "no evidence of notability" here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - per above already stated reasons.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per above. As I understand it, this video is extremely influential and notable in the circles of law enforcement training in the United States, so it has a definite relevant impact. —Ed!(talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that the article was expanded considerably during the course of this debate, so the initial concern has been addressed. The consensus clearly is that the term is notable enough for an entry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle Specific Power[edit]

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

At best this is a dictionary definition, while Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, I can find no evidence that the term is in common sense in the sense given in the article: even the definition in the cited source does not really agree with this article. In fact, the definition "the energy needed to move a specified unit of vehicle mass" does not make it clear exactly what it is supposed to mean. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Modified opinion after seeing the sources. This term exists and is referred to on page 88 of ISBN 9780309070881. I'm satisfied that it is encyclopaedic Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNiPER (Anthony Melas)[edit]

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

This artist is an ex-member of the So Solid Crew who has embarked on a solo career, but it looks like it is too soon for us to have an article on him. There are sources that mention him, but they are almost all of his time in the So Solid Crew; the only mention of his solo career I could find was a magazine mentioned in the references that appears to correspond to this link. I don't think this is enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Also, though I did redirect this to So Solid Crew originally, the title looks too long to be a plausible redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I DO NOT AGREE '“The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia”' “If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it.”

Criteria are as follows

  • Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
  • Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
  • Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
  • Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
  • Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
  • Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
  • Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  • Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

Patent nonsense, test pages, vandalism, created purely for discussion purposes, advertising or promoting, attack page or copy write. None of these apply to Anthony Melas’ Wiki page.

'Notability guideline WP:N- “Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity”'

“A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline” Subject- specific guidelines:

  • Academics
  • Astronomical objects
  • Books
  • Events
  • Films
  • Music
  • Numbers
  • Organizations & companies
  • Numbers
  • People
  • Sports and athletes
  • Web content

“Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.”

The article written about Anthony Melas is worthy of notice a merge of a number of topics including Music, films, Events and people and numbers.

'General notability guideline' If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

  • "Significant coverage"
  • "Reliable" -
  • "Sources"
  • "Independent of the subject"

He is most definitely the subject of the article it is a biography of him not others that are mentioned along the way. The people that are mentioned are merely associates and friends that are part of his growth as an artist and a person. You cannot write a story without mentioning other characters. Examples of this are “In The Cyprus Weekly interview from September 2003 Haji Mike wrote that “He is the first producer based in Cyprus to crack the UK charts in such a big way” He has also been interviewed by RWD Magazine in September 2011 and these have been referenced in the article.

As a solo artist and director of the Melas Group he has recieved Gold Certified Sales Award In The Republic Of Cyprus, SNiPER accepted the Black N' White award of most original genre specific venue organised by STOLI Vodka. In 2009 his single ‘Dat Body’ reached number 1 in the amazon download charts and also top 10 in the HMV UK chart. These are all reliable sources.

Wiki states that:

“If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.” And also“Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. “I feel that by looking at the criteria for deletion the page doesn’t meet the criteria set. Any disputes can be resolved by simply editing the article. The article has been written by a secondary source and has avoided understatement and overstatement. The article is “presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone”.I would actually like to hear more about this artist as the content is quite brief! He has done a lot in his short life and the youth of today should read articles like this and aspire to make something of their lives rather than taking drugs and turning to crime.

By Kellie-Marie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.43.205 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to digest in that post, Kellie-Marie, but most of it is copied from our policies. There's material in the article that simply isn't notable enough to bear mention - for instance, the BBC references don't seem to talk about the subject at all. I removed the subject's own website as a reference, since it's not neutral. I don't know that the Stoli award shows anything, as - per [29] - it's a fan-voted award. Nor can I find news coverage of the award. Sources that talk about the subject's single and how it hit the charts would be helpful. At the moment, there's information in the article that does not appear to have come from any available source - the introduction and history section, primarily - and that's what leads some to believe that the article is promotional in tone. It reads like something the artist or a fan might have written, and that violates our requirement that articles be Neutral in tone. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a section header, above, as it was breaking formatting at the AFD log and elsewhere. I left the text, bold and intact. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per my comments above - notability hasn't been demonstrated, yet. I agree with the nominator, though - this may be a case of TOOSOON as opposed to NOTEVER. The Usual Caveats apply, as well; if the one single that charted in Cyprus is insufficient, then a future single that breaks bigger may tip the balance. In that event, an article may be warranted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jibboom[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (PROD contested by the author, without any explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Redirect to Bowsprit, not enough coverage in reliable sources for an independent article. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well....... this link looks pretty good: [30] for one thing. My advice would be to check the concept out in Google Books and see what you can find.--Coin945 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GoogleBooks was actually the first place I looked... I agree that there's a ton of mentions there, but none of them actually say anything much about the jibboom. Your link, above, is one of the better ones, but it does little more than simply define the term (and, per JamesBWatson's nomination, this isn't a dictionary). Yunshui 雲‍水 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - interesting to note that jib boom is a redirect to jib.HausTalk 02:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The jibboom is a notable part of a ship. Wikipedia has articles for hawsehole, mainsail, hull, bowsprit, gunwale, etc., so why not jibboom? Maybe you can't write 10,000 words about jibbooms, but we have much less to say on pelican strikers and yet everyone agrees that the article pelican striker belongs here. Quinoaeater (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of what should be basic encyclopedic coverage of a notable subject. The various parts of a ship are notable, just as the different parts of an automobile are. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Craven[edit]

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

Prodded on the grounds of failing the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for authors but deprodded by an SPA. In fact, it has been primarily maintained by a few SPAs/part-SPAs. There is a forest of references, but most of them seem to be either blogs or Craven's own work, making the article quite self-promotional. Can't see any sign of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. ClaretAsh 13:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  11:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–France relations[edit]

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

Describes relations between two cultural lineages rather than two states. Appears to be WP:SYNTH in that it presumes a link between Cilician Armenia and modern Armenia, despite there being no clear political connection between the two. The bulk of the article does not describe verifiable international relations between two states. Examples:

  • The Middle Ages section describes Cilician Armenia - Crusader relations among other non-issues;
  • The Ottoman section does not describe verifiable relations;
  • The Armenian genocide section is mostly irrelevant as no Armenian state existed at the time that was empowered to maintain international relations;
  • The Armenians in France section does not equate to relations between Armenia and France.

All in all, there is almost nothing in the article constituting verifiable international relations between the French state and the Armenian state (or their political predecessors). ClaretAsh 12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Or start over. There may be notability here, but right now it looks like unsourced WP:OR. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cull. Relations were established 20 years ago and there have been many high level visits.--TM 20:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It needs improvement, but I don't think deleting the article is necessary.Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to clarify, I don't dispute that WP should have on article on this topic. I just think there is nothing in this particular version worth keeping. However, if people here agree, I'll withdraw my nom and rewrite the article from scratch. I don't expect the resulting article to be more than a paragraph or two, though. ClaretAsh 05:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article as it is now is bit of a disaster area, but the subject itself is entirely valid and notable. The subject is NOT restricted to international relations between two states, as a perusal of the various other Wikipedia "county xxxx-country yyyy relations" articles will show. Ash's argument for deletion is not valid. If it is admitted that the subject IS notable enough to have a Wikipedia article then the current content of the article is unimportant as far as deletion arguments go. See: WP:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Meowy 16:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It doesn't matter that the Armenian genocide occurred before there was an Armenian state, because France's present-day reaction to it is of unquestionable significance to its relationship with the state that exists now. Regardless, I also dispute that such an article can or should only be limited to formal interactions between the presently-existing modern states, for the same reason that we don't limit History of Armenia or History of France only to those modern legal entities. Is History of France WP:SYNTH for linking Roman Gaul or the Bourbon dynasty to the Fifth Republic? Nonsense. We are not inventing that continuity; historians already have.

    I also question the merit in a strict adherence to WP:N for such foreign relation articles. The usual concerns, such as self-promotion of insignificant individuals or organizations or lack of verifiable NPOV information, would seem to me not to apply to the relationship (both historical and present) of two countries even if there is not "significant coverage" in reliable secondary sources on that relationship per se. So even if it can only be pieced together from news accounts, "trivial" mentions in secondary sources, and primary source government documents, I don't see why that's a problem for this kind of subject. If there is a counterargument, I'd like to hear it. postdlf (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- This article is a horrible hotch-potch. Most of it is about French relations with the Armenian people, who historically were scattered across a wide swathe of what is now eastern Turkey and adjacent countries. We could probably make a satsifactory article out of this, but this needs to refer to a lot more than what was formerly Russian Armenia, and now the state of that name. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs work, but deleting is a bit of an overreaction. VartanM (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article may have problems, but this is very clearly a notable subject - as anyone would realize just from following the news. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football) . The overarching article seems likely to survive its AfD, and there may be some material that can be merged there, so I have kept the article histories. Black Kite (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canadian Championship 2009[edit]

Western Canadian Championship 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As requested, I am also nominating the following related pages because: a) it has been requested by other editors, and b) they are related articles, all of which should be deleted together, and this will make it easier for those participating in the discussion.
Western Canadian Championship 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western Canadian Championship 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western Canadian Championship 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western Canadian Championship 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western Canadian Championship 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Canadian Provinces Gaelic football competition. Some were PRODed, but PROD was removed by creator. Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Both articles fail WP:NOTSTATSBOOK as they are generically a table of results. The topic of the article however, is notable. There is significant coverage but there seems to be no solid indication of notability. Cleanup and include more information in prose on the subject. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point as to NOTSTATSBOOK. I agree that there is no solid indication of notability. I also fail to see significant RS coverage. In the absence of such coverage, I would have no problem with this being userfied, but it would not seem to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd also like to suggest that we bundle this with the earlier Western Canadian Championship articles (2003-08, I believe). Is there a process for adding them to do one batch deletion?Tyrenon (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As requested, I've tried my hand at bundling. I've not done this before, so if an admin could check -- especially already existing article 2008, and revise them if I've done this improperly that would be great.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've bundled articles as indicated above. I've left Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football) as a stand-alone, so editors can !vote there separately for that over-arching (not year-championship) article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all: to Western Canadian Championship (Gaelic football) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? They're all just stats anyways. The article you are attempting to merge to is also nominated for deletion. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I noticed. I voted keep on it. And NOTSTATSBOOK says explicitly that you can use some stats if they are properly contextualized. So pick the best few stats from each of these articles, add some prose, and merge it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi., Purple. I also challenge all the uncited material. I believe that per wp:CHALLENGED, challenged material should not be restored without inline citations. Given that, would you agree that (at best) deletion or userfy/redirects (if the target survives) would be in order in such circumstances? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I could see it being removed for now and added back into the umbrella article when citations are found Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would certainly have no objection to that. Since wp:CHALLENGED requires that challenged material have inline citations, I always think that in these circumstances it is more efficient to do what you describe. It also has the benefit of not creating needless work; otherwise, the person suggesting the move (not the closer, as it turns out) is the one who moves the edit history and talk page history.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criss Jami[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. A search for sources brings up nothing more substantial than user-generated reviews and pages created by or affiliated with the subject. His books are self-published through Amazon's CreateSpace facility, which should immediately ring alarm bells. There also appears to be a conflict of interest issue with the page's creator, looks a lot like an attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am closely affiliated with the subject of the article, and I originally created the page. He is indeed a self-published author who, despite being self-published, has developed a devoted fan base who I felt deserved a "go-to source" as to who this guy is: people have enjoyed his books and philosophies, but aren't certain of the guy behind the work that they enjoy (he's introverted (one of his great topics) and often avoids the media). I personally don't believe that being self-published devalues the notability, quality, or integrity of his work. It's just an article, not the end of the world, so delete it if you must (even though I've seen far worse articles, which perplexes me as to why when I look at the History of this article there's a lot of back and forth controversy). I do have a complaint about the Wikipedia community here. There seems to be presuppositions of the integrity and character behind article creations. Anyone who knows anything about his work knows his beliefs regarding fame, money, and personal gain. I can't speak for the rest of the contributors, however the page isn't for promotion nor was it meant to be worded in such a manner. My complaint isn't so much the deletion of any internet article (it's an asinine situation), but rather the hostile vibes towards imperfect contributors. Because Wikipedia isn't "policed" by a neutral, trustworthy staff, but rather everyday contributors, it seems rather easy to overlook/exaggerate certain guidelines out of spite, "clique", etc.

On second thought, the creator actually writes a lot like Jami. I can tell because I want to repeat him, "Because Wikipedia isn't 'policed' by a neutral, trustworthy staff, but rather everyday contributors, it seems rather easy to overlook/exaggerate certain guidelines out of spite, 'clique', etc."

Keep Philosophynow789 (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Philosophynow789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That makes two WP:SPAs who (in addition to the first who appears to be Chriss Jami) who have advocated keeping the topic. The editing history shows that they are closely connected. A WP:CheckUser is probably a good thing, to see how many individuals are conducting the discussion). TEDickey (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the history, it appears that one created this topic (see WP:Meat puppetry) after consultation with the first (who was unsuccessful in the review), and that the third helped with the process. An AFD really should be conducted by independent individuals, not those who have colluded beforehand to promote the topic TEDickey (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hmm I have no idea what all that means. I indeed made a Wikipedia account after I heard that Criss Jami now had one. The rumors about this place must be true. I'd prefer editors, not stalkers and attack bots. http://theoks.net/blog/2009/08/27/reblog-why-i-really-hate-wikipedia-administrators/ And I almost want to change my vote because I hardly encourage anyone being a part of a site who so closely monitors users with such opposition. Severelightz (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That link was hilarious, thanks for the laugh! "I edit-warred, made disruptive edits and sockpuppeteered, and those bastard admin nazis blocked me for it!" Yunshui 雲‍水 11:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why of course it's funny. There's humor in truth, my friend. Severelightz (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Closely connected" TEDickey (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tedickey just proved my point. People must not be allowed to make an account to support a certain cause, otherwise they're considered a "meatpuppet". At least I can admit why and when I came to the site, I don't deny it. I just think this is silly to be so obsessive. Severelightz (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is unclear, since the editing record shows that your first edit was about 20 minutes after the topic was created - implying that some form of announcement or other direct communication provided you with "after I heard that Criss Jami now had one". Absent that, another plausible interpretation of your remark might be that you were watching Criss Jami's lack of progress in this, followed by this. TEDickey (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the new rule: A person should keep their mouth shut after a new page is up. The attack bots will accuse you of site vandalism. As far as I can tell, none of the contributions made were harmful or offensive to anyone or anything. You speak as though the contributors to this article were troublemakers who invaded your home when really you're the only individual escalating something you personally disagree with. If you think the article should be deleted, great! But you evidently have a bigger issue with harmless users than an article. Severelightz (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. The contributors to the topic have been offensive, making accusations, using self-published sources and vague assertions of notability. That's in the editing history (including your own edits and comments). The other editors have asked for WP:RS, evidence of WP:Notability, and none have been presented TEDickey (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Being self-published is not a criteria for deletion, but it is a red flag for doing further investigation for notability as it is rare that a self-published author gets significant overage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanic Eruptions[edit]

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

Non-Notable. Vanity production company for Crispin Hellion Glover with no significant (if any) hits on Google and Yahoo. Only produced less then a hand full (3 to be exact) films and has no other significant contributions or works that warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree... a delete and redirect of the term should go to Types of volcanic eruptions. But in case a reader is looking for the film company, and as it does not yet merit a separate article, we can then set a redirect of the term "Volcanic Eruptions (film company)" to where it is already mentioned in the Crispin Glover article so as to differentiate the two. Sensible. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Lawley[edit]

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

The news coverage of Ms Lawley is focused almost entirely on her being the first plus size model to appear on the cover of a small number of magazines (examples: [31], [32], [33] and thinly disguised press releases from her management on this topic (eg [34]). As such, I don't think that she meets WP:BLP1E. The article appears to have been created by an editor who appears to have some relationship with her management judging from their editing. Please note that I nominated this for prod deletion, but it was disputed by an editor who's only activity has been to edit this article. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep: The following source is almost exclusively about the model: T HERE is nothing wrong with being a ``plus size in fashion according to top model Robyn Lawley , who will be appearing in the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Festival beginning in Sydney today. Centralian Advocate (Darwin, Australia) - Tuesday, August 23, 2011, Edition: 1, Page: 016, Record Number: CAV_T-20110823-1-016-305916, Copyright, 2011, Nationwide News Pty Limited. The first line is: "T HERE is nothing wrong with being a ``plus size in fashion according to top model Robyn Lawley , who will be appearing in the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Festival beginning in Sydney today. " The last line is: "Robyn said this pointed to a positive change within a world many associate with images of stick-thin and starving women. " She's mentioned in another article: Aussie who's breaking the fashion rules, Sunday Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) - Sunday, July 31, 2011, Author: ELLE HALLIWELL, Edition: 1 - State,Section: Features, Page: 110, Record Number: STE_T-20110731-1-110-074101, Copyright, 2011, Nationwide News Pty Limited. The first line is: "She's graced more high fashion covers than most models can dream of, yet Robyn Lawley can't fit standard sample sizes. The last line is a quote from her: ``I think including plus-size models in fashion editorials will eventually lead to designers using us on the runways. Someone has to start it for everyone else to follow." End quote. The Sunday Telegraph article also says "Having graced the covers of Vogue Italia and French Elle in the space of just a few months, New York-based Lawley has reached more success than most models. " The Wikipedia article has severe problems but having looked through Newsbank, I'm convinced she meets WP:GNG, especially as there are several articles exclusively about her. The article still needs a massive clean up though. :( --LauraHale (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the stories about her, including that one, appear to be from mid-last year and are about her appearing on the cover of some magazines, so I think that it's only the one event. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Newsbank has at least two articles from 2010. But yes, that issue kind of appeared to me too. :( My instinct was to vote delete.  :( --LauraHale (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: WP:BLP1E states that if "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented a separate biography may be appropriate." It then goes on to say that an event is significant if the "event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Robyn has been in repeated and continuous news articles since 2010. In the modeling industry she is "taking it by storm." Besides news articles there are interviews,[35] commercials,[36] short films, [37] runway shows, blogs, and a facebook fan page with over 4000 followers from around the world,[38] which continues to grow daily. Plus-size modeling is not going to remain a "low profile event" and Robyn is continuing to "take the world by storm"[39] and break barriers in the fashion industry as she "paves the way for more curvy cover girls." [40] Also, from all of these news stories, interviews, runway shows, being on multiple covers of major high fashion magazines, along with her unique contribution to "plus-size" modeling, combined with her strong and loyal fan base on facebook, blogs, ect., she seems to satisfy notability under WP:NMODEL. I know I am a new member, however, that does not mean that I don't make a valid argument. I strongly feel that this article should stay. Mount1313 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In the modeling world, a girl who is over size 10 and has graced the covers of Vogue (magazine), Elle (magazine), Madison and others are "significant" events. Robyn, being a "plus size" model, has done this and has been the first to do it in many instances. Furthermore, Robyn is one of a very few models who promotes a normal and healthy body type. This is one reason for her rise in popularity. Although she is still a raising model her popularity rises every day with continuing editorial and catalogue work. Which includes the Madison cover and interview that was released only this week. http://www.madisonmag.com.au/ Additionally, there are other numerous and extensive news articles, interviews, pictures and youtube videos devoted to Robyn. A simple google search will reveal her notability. This Wikipedia article might need some cleaning up to do but under the language of WP:GNG it seems to clearly pass muster. Mount1313 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC). — Mount1313 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I would like to further add that her notability extends world-wide. She is signed to agencies in Australia, UK, Germany, France, Italy, and the United States and has either done editorial, catalogue or fashion shows in each of these countries and beyond. Mount1313 (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I couldn't make out the reasoning of cocomonkilla. Nate has a good viewpoint but there's clear consensus for a keep considering the other comments. Wifione Message 11:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Were They Thinking?[edit]

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

Lacks notability, and official website is archived. JayJayTalk to me 03:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References document that it showed on a national network. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets our N criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite references they seem to only list that existed, and not for a very long period of time. Though I'm an inclusionist this article has no hope of expansion or further elaboration beyond "it aired on this channel for a little bit in August '06"; it needs way more than that. Nate • (chatter) 00:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bob's Burgers. Wifione Message 11:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Belcher[edit]

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

Insufficient notability and also lacks reliable third party sources. JayJayTalk to me 03:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Bob's Burgers Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge agreed, should be merged into Bob's Burgers. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to an admin for some reason the nominee of this afD inadvertently missed a step somewhere because on the article's page in the template where the link that says "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." it is a red line (No such page) where as it should actually be a blue link that goes directly to this page. Can someone please look at this and correct it so other Wikipedians will be able to come to this page directly and have a vote. Thank you. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's fixed now; not sure what happened there. Probably just the database catching up. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Link in the AFD was going to "bob belcher" rather than "bob_belcher". Went ahead and fixed that up. Let's see if it sticks this time.Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenet It's not my mistake it is because of twinkle JayJayTalk to me 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bob Belcher is the main character of the new prime-time Fox television series Bob's Burgers. This character should have his own page to develop as the series progresses. Every other show on Fox's Sunday night animation domination has many individual character pages.--TBrandley (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have said this for every character on this TV show which you have all created, but you failed to provide reliable sources. The sources you provided on your article do not qualify as reliable sources under WP:USERG I suggest you read that. JayJayTalk to me 21:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. The character is not independently notable outside of the television show and primary or fan released sources aren't enough to show that an article is warranted at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Merge into Bob's Burgers - no significant indications of notability outside the series. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Networking Groups – Rotary International[edit]

Global Networking Groups – Rotary International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete It has no context, and the content seems to be irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Kinkreet (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like interest groups within Rotary International. A merge might be in order but the current material is so lackign in context that it really would need a rewrite so any such material could be written directly at Rotary International. -- Whpq (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn Fences&Windows 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dream transference[edit]

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

Other than the unreliable source currently used as reference 2, I cannot find support for this being a notable phenomenon in studies of the paranormal.

The article further appears to conflate the idea of a dream transferring to another person with the psychoanalytical concept of Transference in relation to dreaming.

I don't think that there is anything salvagable here. Fences&Windows 02:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--Coin945 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly snowing (non-admin closure) Spartaz Humbug! 09:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Gingrich-Jones[edit]

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

Covered in many sources, but almost none talk about her in her own right; only in the context of Newt Gingrich. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If she was featured in Esquire and the Woman of the Year for Ms., I think that passes the notability requirement. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, all of the coverage is based on her being Newt's half-sister and a voice for HRC because she's Newt's half-sister and a guest on Maddow and Olbermann because she's Newt's half-sister and the coverage in Advocate, NY Post, huffingtonpost, The Independent, NY Daily News, etc. are because she's Newt's half-sister. If she weren't Newt's half-sister, we would probably not have heard of her. Kinda like Billy Carter, except that we have a much better photo of Carter and there's no Candace Beer. In the end, though, we have enough for an admittedly small (but non-stub) article. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: coverage the direct result of relation to Newt. Notability is not inherited.– Lionel (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not inherited, but it often arises from connections. The subject has received sufficient attention in her own right, including an award, and other recognition, that she is now notable in her own right.   Will Beback  talk  08:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:GNG. There is absolutely no doubt about this.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration -- I am doing this because the article really could use improvement.. Milowent • hasspoken 18:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not every family member he has gets coverage. And they don't just talk about in relationship to him. She wouldn't get the praise of the two magazines mentioned just for being someone's relative. Dream Focus 19:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Notability is not inherited" doesn't mean "you can't be notable if you have a notable relative." Plenty of coverage about her and her public activities. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significantly improved sourcing since nomination -- for example, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,294019,00.html --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're not saying that she's notable because of her relation to Newt, we're saying that she's notable because she's being noted by significant sources. If we couldn't say that someone was notable if their initial boost came off of being related to someone, hey, there's goes George W. Bush. She does not get banned from notability consideration because she's related to Newt. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable, notable, notable. Sources demonstrate that she is not only notable due to her relationship with her father half-brother.--He to Hecuba (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Father? Now that would be a news story. :-) --Milowent • hasspoken 21:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The motto of the tale is, don't drink and Wikipedia...--He to Hecuba (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ellen Germaine[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO, only coverage that I am finding are announcements for gigs. J04n(talk page) 00:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS seem to confirm WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Found just trivial mentions. Cavarrone (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 River Dodder. Wifione Message 11:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell Bridge (Dublin)[edit]

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

I don't see any indication this bridge is independently notable short of its inclusion in the atlases or the family story of its creation. The closest guideline I can find is Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets#Notability guidelines (WP:BRIDGE doesn't have one) and this clearly fails that. Shadowjams (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Too many other projects of similar status that should be deleted before this one, such as the ones on the bottom of the project page. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OTHERSTUFF exists is an argument that's not very compelling in AfD debates. Are there any sources that indicate it's notability beyond merely mentioning it? Shadowjams (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to River Dodder, possibly creating River Dodder#Crossings. A list of crossings as part of the river article is fully appropriate; the bridge itself, however, is a run-of-the-mill concrete bridge. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per The Bushranger. No indication why this bridge is notable. Just the regular type of bridge you'll find anywhere. Not designed by a famous architect, not an interesting history attached to the bridge, no reliable sources; just WP:MILL SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Idependently notable having been written about in an imporant book on the history of Dublin (Chapters of Dublin). As pointed out there is no guideline for Irish bridges, there is clearly an interest in them - http://www.dublin.ie/forums/showthread.php?15242-The-Bridges-on-Dublin-Rivers-and-Canals . The first bridge was built in the mid 1800's so clearly there was a more interesting structure than the current one. More content will be added once additional sources are identified. - User:Deitel55 —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • There is no guideline for Irish bridges, but there is the WP:GNG. Is there sufficient information to establish notability? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per The Bushranger. Not notable enough to have its own article but definitely rates a mention in the River Dodder article. Snappy (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to List of Dublin bridges and tunnels. This article has a vast number of red links, which need to be delinked. This article is unlikely to be expanded and would be better dealt with as part of the entry on it in that article. On the other hand, it might be useful to split that article, merging its sections respectively to the rivers etc crossed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There appears to be a lot written about the bridge under its original name "WALDRON'S BRIDGE" that isn't fully accessible on the web, like the third book in this link - [41]. WP:GNG requires the existence of in-depth coverage, not that it's hyperlinked in the article or an afd.--Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While not sufficiently notable itself, merging the referenced content into the River Dodder crossing is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione Message 11:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Southside Six[edit]

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

Local sports event which lacks substantial third party coverage to justify notability requirements. SFB 18:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2012_February_16&oldid=1142635431"