Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 July	2 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. And a {{trout}} for the nominator for a nomination rationale that makes me want to invoke SK2E. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime conventions[edit]

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

unnecessary article. already we have a category--Sinjanthu (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Isn't perfect, but categories and lists are not to be deleted simply because they exist. Per WP:CLN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I think the OP needs to read WP:LISTS and WP:CLN - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Article serves purpose and lists only conventions that are notable. Esw01407 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, no valid reason for deletion given. Cavarrone 22:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anything it should be heavily expanded (currently US/CA-centric) as many convention goers, particularly fan/entertainment, like to attend events around their nation and the world. Old Guard (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The conventions have to pass an inclusion criteria in order to be on the list, if the convention has been deemed notable and is anime only (Not multi-genre as there is another list for those) then it can go in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Not all anime conventions are notable, so a list like this would be a good idea to somehow integrate content about them. Also, lists like this are acceptable. If anything, the article should be rewritted into a global view and include prominent non-American conventions like Anime Festival Asia and other related cons. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No valid deletion rationale has been given. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Speedy deleted per request by creator. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan's Law[edit]

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

Evident hoax, although I don't think it's quite at G3 level. See searches such as these: [1] [2] [3] CtP (t • c) 23:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax. I'm Nolan. It's my law. I didn't think anyone would find it for several weeks, and i'm learning how to post on wikipedia. Thanks. https://plus.google.com/u/0/101942246191738597064/posts/9NNWGbXWZ7a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanmanteufel (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MADEUP. CtP (t • c) 01:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Will remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanmanteufel (talk • contribs) 01:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Yuhnke[edit]

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

Local TV news anchor; no indication of notability. I could not find significant coverage about him in a search. Unreferenced since 2005. MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill anchor, nothing notable to document. Judicatus | Talk 05:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be a notability problem.LM2000 (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doyen Group[edit]

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

Badly written advertisement for a commercial scheme, the references mainly lead to press releases. Nixie9✉ 22:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is hard to dig out source, but the name of the company did appeared in Portuguese media and official website of F.C. Porto, thus it is not a hoax. The Ad tone was reverted by me to my stable version, feel free to edit and improve it. Matthew_hk t c 07:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 07:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - shadowy company involved in football transfers somehow? Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG? Non-notable. Giant Snowman 08:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For GNG. bloomberg had a reasonable long article about the fund and bloomberg claimed that they asked the supervisor of the fund to response, did it a reasonable large coverage on the fund? Matthew_hk t c 02:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although notability could not be inherited, I added the hotel section which seems notable, but you could say it is arbitrarily that the parent company of the hotel group is notable or not. Matthew_hk t c 06:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - relevant football information can be merged to football club articles and/or player articles. I do not see the company to satisfy general notability. --MicroX (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Street[edit]

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

I initially placed a Notability tag on this page earlier this month during which time I tried to find additional material that would justify its existence. Neither my searches nor the Notability tag elicited any new information. The page exists as a biographical under a stub for journalists. Wiki guidelines are clear on this, for journalists to be included the following criteria need to be met, to which I have provided responses in short in CAPITALS:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. NO
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. CLEARLY NOT
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. ABSOLUTELY NOT
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. CLEARLY NOT

In addition the references to the awards which seem to be an additional basis of notability are thinly disguised puff pieces. Most notably, and I changed this today, the reference to an Order of Australia commendation turns out to be a high school level Order of Australia Association NSW Branch certificate.

Overall this former journalist (no information on the web as to what he is now) and former adviser (note, not senior adviser, chief of staff or otherwise notable political position) has no place in an Encyclopedia. As such this page should be Deleted. --Ddragovic (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I have no opinion on the notability if this person, but you're assertion above isn't quite correct.The notability guidelines are just that, guidelines, not fixed rules. Read the sections above the subject specific guidelines, especially "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below" & "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The-Pope (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have little time for a substantive comment but agree with Ddragovic. Delete Phd8511 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the earlier arguments for keeping the page and found the reasons for keeping the page often misleading. Here is one argument in favour of keeping, "Street is a chief correspondent on Nine Network and is considered a top journalist in Australia. He is the 2009 winner of the National Press Club of Australia's annual award for contributions to journalism. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)." This is simply not true, Street is not nor was a chief correspondent as far as I can find anywhere and its misleading to state that he was a winner of the "National Press Club of Australia's annual award for contributions to journalism", instead he is the winner of an award, there are many, this one ($1,000 prize) being given to journalists in their first years i.e. junior journalists.--Ddragovic (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using the Google links above, there are no hits on Daniel Street as an aid/development adviser to Rudd nor as his time as a journalist. There are no news articles/videos free and legally available to state him as a core journalist in Australia. Even if he was, I fail to see how that is a requisite for being a dictionary article. There are no reports, free or gated, academic or government, that are published by him at all relating to media or aid and development. Even if that is so, why aren't other special advisers to other foreign and/or development ministers on Wikipedia? Finally, a picture search reveals no common face whatsoever. I fail to see why this is an article or a notable individual worthy of an article.Phd8511 (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal for deletion. Non-notable. Bumble100bee (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can I ask when the decision for this AfD will be made?Phd8511 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wejhwa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Prior PROD was removed without fixing the obvious and stated problems, ie: it is a new and completely unsourced article. The are no hits at GBooks or JSTOR. Sitush (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nominee's reason is pretty self explanatory, the article does not have encyclopedic value. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cerro Maravilla murders. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Soto Arriví[edit]

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

My previous attempt to redirect was reverted by Mercy11 (talk · contribs) who cited WP:CONSENSUS, even though there is no consensus on any talk page (as far as I can see) and they are clearly ignorant of WP:BOLD. Anyway, I see no evidence of any independent notability away from the Cerro Maravilla murders article, so I propose we redirect/merge as appropriate. I am also nominating:

Arnaldo Darío Rosado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

for the exact same reason. These individuals are not notable; their deaths are, and an appropriate article already exists. 13:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs)

Comment. Being bold means do it with civility and calling some one ignorant fails that mark. As a long time editor, Snowman should stop playing dumb and know that nowhere in WP:BOLD it says consensus must have been reached in the past, as is his assumption here. If the nominator wants to delete the article, it needs to be done the way Wikipedia has determined it be done: following procedure - via the appropriate channels, as he is now finally doing it. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message[reply]

Sigh, I have not been uncivil, how is saying you are unaware of a guideline and pointing you in its direction a bad thing? You'll even note that WP:BOLD is linked to under WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Please read the guidelines you quote before creating more work for everybody involved. Giant Snowman 14:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Absolutely no reason for a standalone article. Beerest355 Talk 14:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. If any editors are interested in merging content from either article, the histories will continue to be available for that purpose. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Machine (producer)[edit]

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

No indication or support for the claim that this individual meets WP:BIO. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not establish notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The extensive discography linked to notable bands and notable albums denote his significance to the music industry. MMetro (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely non notable. Koala15 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket dolls[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable doll. The article is essentially a pure promo piece, devoid of any in-line references, and a Google search turns up nothing in the way of reliable sources. Neither external link in the article is reliable. Some of the results in the search turn up references to Charles Dickins' books, which appear to be totally unconnected. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio. Appears to be copied directly from multiple websites. --Glaisher [talk] 10:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy is fine if the copyvio notice is true. However, some non-copyvio version should exist as Cricket was definitely a notable doll. She was a big hit when released, making it into the top 10 toys of that year and making Playmates Toys into a major industry force. Sources are mostly going to be from the mid-80s and mostly not online, but there is some coverage on Google News, as well as this piece from the LA Times which suggests the dolls were used in treating anxiety in children (and were once a permanent exhibit in the LA Children's Museum). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speedy unless you can specify the websites. I removed the tag but anyone is free to replace it if they give the sites. DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in Vanguard Volume 17 (Vancouver Art Gallery., 1988), Social World of Pupil Assessment: Processes and Contexts of Primary Schooling Ann Filer, Andrew Pollard ISBN 9781847143969 p.117 and Out of the Garden: Toys, Tv, and Children's Culture in the Age of Marketing Stephen Kline Verso 1993 ISBN 9781859840597 p.262 . Lots more coverage in nostalgia blogs and sales on eBay, but those three sources, plus the coverage Andrew picked up, ought to be enough to meet WP:GNG. Should be at least possible to wipe out any copyvios and start again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Ostrow[edit]

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

"Producer's Representative" is an undefined role, and there is no reason to think it notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No solid third-party sources, and as nominator indicates, no evidence that this role is notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She and her company get some mentions in the trade press [4], but not significant enough for notability. (OTOH, the number of mentions suggests to me that "producer's representative" may be a meaningful job title in the films world even if we haven't heard of it.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No demonstration of notability here, and no valid reliable sources except IMDb and a blog entry — and frankly, while I can't prove it outright I'd be very surprised if there weren't some conflict of interest issues going on here too. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SerLea[edit]

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

Article sourced only to a photo of this gun. I couldn't find reliable sources to support the material. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax The only sources of information for this gun is Wikipedia itself and a very poor quality image from Imageshack that looks like it has been photoshopped. This appears to be a hoax and should be removed immediately.--RAF910 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've got nothing on this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found. DrunkSquirrel (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Trends in library usage. I'd like to note to the creator that if he would like to do something with the essay, there are alternative venues where the essay form is appropriate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future of libraries[edit]

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

A well written and interesting essay, this is not an encyclopaedia article. It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Fiddle Faddle 20:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. True, it is an essay. I think some of it is salvageable but needs to be moved to the relevant articles: Library, Public library, Digital library, etc.Deb (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the scope of Wikipedia; ~~delete~~. Possibly transwiki to some other project? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Redirect to Trends in library usage. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be saved to Trends in library usage. I note that that article, as Decline of library usage, was kept at AfD but then moved over and greatly improved by the author of this page (User:Libraryowl). Ansh6 6 6 21:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reasonably sourced info to Trends in library usage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the author of this article. I agree it could use a good deal of work & expansion, but the topic is notable. The future of libraries is subject of both public debate and significant scholarship. Where the various sub-topics are speculative, that speculation is drawn directly from credible and recent academic and major media sources (clarification: by "drawn directly," I don't mean that I drew the conclusion, I mean the sources did). Most of the information includes details about things large research and urban libraries are doing now in order to modernize. We have a fairly long and detailed article on the history of libraries* which is also a "synthesis" of sources. If the problem is a title, framing or style issue, that can be fixed with editing. I am a v. new Wikipedian and am not completely familiar with WP house style. I encourage more experienced editors to work on this article to bring it up to quality standards. *If there is a delete consensus, I would support a merge of some of this information into the "History of libraries" article or the "Trends/decline" article, which I did significant work on.--Libraryowl (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC) After some further thought & research on the rules and norms, I am changing my position to a solid support merge or delete. I think that I jumped the gun a little on this one & didn't really understand the WP:SYNTH rule. The better material here can be split up between several articles, e.g. trends in library usage, public libraries, bookless libraries, learning commons, etc. I don't know if there is a procedure to bring this discussion to a quick close, but I hope other participants will support a merge consensus as well.--Libraryowl (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that I can request deletion under WP:CSD#G7 and the article meets the qualifications for WP:speedy deletion. If there is an administrator that can do it, I have no problem. Thanks for your comments, WP. Libraryowl (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't speedy delete it. This is a useful redirect, and we'd need the content to merge anyways. Deleting gets rid of all that. Ansh6 6 6 06:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some (but not all) of the information and citations here are already in Trends in library usage. ~~I still think there's a case for "keep,"~~ but if I'm not wiki-ing correctly I would appreciate some guidance & tutoring from the community on my talk page. While I started off with an RFD, I have really enjoyed participating in WP and want to contribute in a positive & helpful way.Libraryowl (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Considering the cited work done here I think it would be a waste for an outright deletion even if it is presented in the style of an essay and all that wonderful wikipedia agreed upon standard policy jazz. I support this article, I think it is well deserved in taking up the kilobytes of space on the servers at Wikimedia, but in the spirit of following our standards as a community it really should be salvaged into pieces of information for other articles to be further improved, saving the work of making this singular article into something high grade compared to minor work in improving others which are already well established. Correct me if I am wrong. Judicatus | Talk 22:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per merge suggestions above. The section titled "The future of books" looks suitable for inclusion in History of books or Bookselling. —rybec 04:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support selective merge as nominator I am happy to support a selective merge of the various elements into relevant articles. Fiddle Faddle 07:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Trends in library usage. There is some solid, sourced material that can be extracted from this page that would enhance the proposed target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to start moving things to different pages? I don't know if it's appropriate to clear the page and create a redirect until this discussion has come to a close. Libraryowl (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly going to be closed as a selective 'merge' but, because we have an outstanding delete !vote, I think that an early non-admin close might be frowned upon. Therefore don't redirect at this stage. However, because you wrote the original content you are able to merge it, whatever the outcome and prior to any redirect, without any GFDL attribution issues. This is a case for pragmatism so, with regard to merging some sourced content, go for it I say! The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, that delete !vote is actually a merge !vote in disguise. Ansh6 6 6 21:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love your edit summary! :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ansh6 6 6 22:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I started work on merging. There is a pretty thorough summary of what I moved & where it went on the article's talk page. In case it's unclear, I also support an eventual redirect of this page to Trends in library usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libraryowl (talk • contribs) 23:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional classes vs online classes[edit]

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

Personal essay full of synthesis. An article dedicated solely to comparing and contrasting traditional and online classes doesn't seem necessary unless sources proving that the comparisons themselves are notable are presented, and even then there's nothing here worth keeping. CtP (t • c) 20:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure WP:OR. Fiddle Faddle 20:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No sources, so unmergeable. Possibly redirect, but can't find a good target. Ansh6 6 6 21:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every article dealing with the general subject will make comparisons, but the comparisons are so general its not like comparing email programs or the like, where a comparison article is justified. This articles isn't going to go anywhere, and the title isn;t a usable redirect.I think SNOW might be appropriate DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ohnoitsjamie under criterion G3 (vandalism). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Banks Day[edit]

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

Vandalism, speedy deletion tags repeatedly removed by IP. GregJackP Boomer! 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a fun big event on the OBX.--75.139.101.151 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for obvious reasons. Why this wasn't sent directly to an admin is beyond me (or even posted at AN/ANI) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm - I just didn't think of it. GregJackP Boomer! 20:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - for obvious reasons; nonsense, hoax, etc. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Beerest355 Talk 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Jones (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This DAB page is useless - a hatnote is used at Spike Jones already (in fact, Spike Jones doesn't even link to this DAB). Not seeing the point here. Beerest355 Talk 19:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Far from useless. 4 valid entries. Spike Jonze is probably the most well-known, and most people wouldn't correctly guess the spelling of his surname, and so are likely to end up here. Meets guidelines, helpful to readers. Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With at least 3 different Spikes, plus the album, a DAB page is useful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although several "keep" opinions do not address the guideline-based reasons for deletions, some do, and we don't have a consensus to delete. My feeling is that a merger to Redbox would be acceptable to most participants here. Sandstein 06:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redbox Movie Awards[edit]

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

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

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

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

This article — and the creator's subsequent spamming of movie articles about this "award" — is virtually all the work of a single-purpose account whose purpose appears to be to promote this company's award, and to push the misleading idea that this one company's video rentals are the only gauge of a video title's rental popularity. Other sources (Blockbuster, Apple, probably a trade magazine such as The Hollywood Reporter) exist. This company's top rentals are not necessarily the actual top rentals. In any event, this page appears to be nothing but promotion for Redbox and the Redbox award should be, at most, a section at Redbox. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. A quick search only causes results from the main website for this award to show with any relevance. It does not appear that notability requirements have been met. Judicatus | Talk 19:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am the editor of this article. This is just to let you know that I have no affiliation with Redbox or anybody in the industry (I live in Europe btw!). My intention was not to spam, far from that. In fact, I worked on this issue because I think that this award represents the popularity of movies better than often financially motivated DVD numbers that the studios release. As far as I know, Redbox has rented 3 billion movies so far in the U.S., so I think the notability criteria is met. Of course I am grateful for all suggestions and debates, after all, this is the spirit of Wikipedia. If the editorial community thinks that the award should be at Redbox, I can accept that too, I have no personal interest in this article. (Also, please do not consider an account SPA, just because it is relatively new, I have used it for other edits too, and intend to use it further on.) Crazyforreading (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 'Redbox has rented 3 billion movies so far in the U.S." — no one is disputing the notability of Redbox, but just this award. Any company can issue awards — Blockbuster issues awards — and that doesn't mean it's notable.

If you're not an SPA, I'm certainly glad about that and look forward to another productive contributor joining Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thanks. I am looking forward too! As for the notability question, the issue is also discussed by the Hollywood reporter, so at least the significance of the data (based on which the award is given) is clear: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/redbox-most-rented-movies-2011-just-go-with-it-276656. (Blockbuster's awards are considered as notable, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_Entertainment_Awards) Crazyforreading (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this "award" is notable whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These "awards" or only a marketing tool. MarnetteD | Talk 00:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider keeping Look, I'm certainly not in a strong position to speak, as I'm a relatively new editor, too. I joined when I read an article saying that Wikipedia editors' involvement was on the decline (which hasn't been my impression btw. I've been impressed with the level of engagement). I discovered this discussion because I've been editing the pages of one of my favorite films and directors. And when this award appeared on his site, I thought: "oh, that's interesting" and enjoyed reading about this award. And also about the criticism that Crazyforreading included. Why don't you keep it in, and simply add some of the concerns you are voicing about this being a marketing tool. There must be places where that concern is voiced? Btw, when reading up about the defunct Blockbuster Entertainment Awards, I found it annoying that it didn't contain a full list of the winners. Awards are often promotional tools for entertainment companies. Fox owns the Teen Choice Awards, just to give an example. The People's Choice Awards are owned by Procter & Gamble, if Wikipedia can be trusted. I would say, as long as it's an Entertainment company giving the Award (and Redbox is one of the biggest there), it's legit and would certainly be interesting to have in. Perhaps we should discourage Crazyforreading from spreading it to all the directors' and movies pages, though. Let's see if that happens naturally. Just my two cents! Thanks for listening. Bob Random Thoughts (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which of your arguments have anything to do with WP:GNG? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete have a look at www.donnersmarck.com , website for the director you mention above. He actually lists the award very prominently himself. Pilotrocksbig (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the award do not has many strong references but still it will be a good addition to wikipedia information about movies. Also its only been one year since the award function to start. I would also like to suggest here for some editing of the article and removal of unnecessary materials. Mr RD (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Strong references?" Hardly. The two references from obvious reliable sources mostly have to do with what Redbox's most-rented titles say about it's users (as do the refs from the two blogs I've never neard of). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE. I agree and after hearing all the suggestions, i believe that rather than deleting, the article should be merged with Redbox. Mr RD (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also as per WP:GNG guidelines are concerned, i have found some of the references which i believe are independent and were not cited before. I have added them to the article, please check them. Mr RD (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:RS makes it clear that press releases do not qualify as such; your first two refs are PRs. Of the second two, "Suspend.tv" is a small blog, and HomeMediaMagazine looks like a trade pub. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for being naive, i don't have as much experience here as you do, but till where i read WP:RS says nothing about press releases. And also these releases are from independent sources. Please help. Thanks. Mr RD (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My mistake, wrong policy; from WP:GNG: "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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i agree with you but the WP:GNG says

“

"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.

”

Here the press releases and most of the references are independent. Thanks. Mr RD (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ since the topic does not appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. There does not appear to be any news coverage about these awards from reliable sources. I found this and this, which are press releases, from Jan-Feb 2013, and there were no independent sources that I could find in that date range that reported the results of these awards. This article has this from the Los Angeles Times which does not mention these awards at all, so it should not be used to cite notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (changed from delete). I think that this from Home Media Magazine is worth highlighting, but most of the sources are either press releases (which cannot be used for notability) or articles that talk about Redbox rentals in general (not about the awards themselves). For example, this does not mention any award, and its use in the article is synthesis. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After looking at this I don't think the article does this subject justice. It definitely needs improving not deleting. There does seem to be an abundance of references, and I suspect (as someone has mentioned above with the director) the winners of these awards will have discussed them. I would say it needs improving, so lets try to improve this and not just delete it 2 days after upload. Verdict78 (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See above comment about the "abundance" of references. None of your comments address this article meets WP:GNG guidelines.

Keep Frankly, there are too many movie, TV and music awards as is. That said, there is nothing wrong with a nationally-known company involved in movie rentals to have its own awards. It's logical and I'd be surprised if it didn't have its own awards. Practically speaking, if you do a Google search, you'll find plenty of non-company references, from its awards, to its giveaways, to how to vote, to its rentals. Here is one example of media coverage, from Home Media Magazine. So, it's notability is valid, IMHO. --GottaHaveFillintheBlank (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC) — GottaHaveFillintheBlank (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It's notable because "there's nothing wrong with it" and "it's logical"? I'm pretty sure that's not part of our general notability guidelines. The single source you cite has already been mentioned. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable, independent coverage from what I can tell. Why bully this into deletion? I am most interested in box office. There is plenty of (and good) coverage on wikipedia on the b.o. from theatrical release, almost none on the success of videos. This award provides one of the rare glimpses into that. If I'm trying to find out what the most successful home entertainment releases were in various genres, where else would I find that on wikipedia? Don't foget that wikipedia is supposed to be useful. This is an important source.--Hypatie d'Alexandrie (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC) — Hypatie d'Alexandrie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Can you highlight the "reliable, independent coverage" that talk about the awards themselves? The only one I see is Home Media Magazine. In addition, this topic is exclusive to Redbox and hardly reflects the history of video releases. A publication like DVD News (which I cite at Panic Room#Home media) gives us a look at that. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After years of participating in these discussions, and subsequently almost entirely withdrawing from them, I've come to realize that how we, as a community, interpret policy depends upon our personal feelings, which is terrible. Many, many articles that I have nominated for deletion or prodded have been kept when they have fewer reliable sources than this one, so I have to assume that my own understanding of GNG was too strict. This article has significant enough coverage to be included. The fact that a prominent editor has taken it upon himself to try to refute every keep comment gives me pause; that always feels like haranguing to me. I understand that some of the keep arguments are not based on interpreting policy, but mine is, so feel free to judge my words on their own merits, rather than on the merits of whatever comment may thereafter be appended thereto.--~T P W 14:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with OhNoitsJamie that this in no way meets WP:GNG on its own — and it is certainly not "personal feelings" to say there is minimal coverage of these "awards", that the mainstream media virtually ignores them, and — quite, quite objectively — they are not the product of an official, nonprofit industry guild, association or academy but are solely a marketing tool for a commercial corporation. As such, they should only be in an encyclopedia within the context of that commercial corporation. Include it in the Redbox article. We're under no obligation to promote every company's self-serving "award." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Béa González[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I looked around for some sources to support the notability of this novelist, but found very little. The current sources seem insufficient. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I contested the PROD because my perusal of google has led me to believe that she is notable, masses of reviews of her 2 books and I have already added 2 new refs. The article needs improving but that is no reason to delete, I hope the AFD results in an improved article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The four sources you've added are all reviews of her books; none of them have more than very basic information on the author herself. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- author published by major publishing house with many substantial reviews of her work. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Author seems notable enough. Atrian (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Colina Domínguez[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Not made an appearance in a fully Pro League and does not meet WP:GNG. All sources are about one event signing for Partick from Barcelona so Wikipedia:BLP1E applies. Contested by creator for the following reason: Signed for Professional team and once season starts will make senior appearances. Blethering Scot 16:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thistle play their first SPL game of the season tomorrow (August 2)[5]. At the moment it's not confirmed whether Colina will play, and if he does he will meet notability rules. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless of course he plays tomorrow. At present, he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Deletion of course without prejudice to recreation if and when he makes his debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Youth career information also taken from Barcelona website sources. If player does not make professional appearance tomorrow night (2nd Aug), article can be deleted and then re-uploaded when first pro-appearance is made. --Daibhidh92 18:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For confirmation he was not included in the match day squad.[6]Blethering Scot 20:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daibhidh92 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - presently fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems a case of WP:TOOSOON. It has generally been agreed that youth appearances, even internationals do not confer notability. Once / if he plays in a FPL then he probably will pass GNG as well as NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not played in Partick's first league game[7] (or for League Cup[8], which isn't technically sufficient to meet notability anyway). Can re-create if he plays in league. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means is fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation once one of the criteria has been met. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Before Christmas: A Mouse Tale[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG. Nor does it meet any of the criteria at WP:NF. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. In searching under its many names, all I can determine is that it exists and has had international DVD distribution. Apparently this film has not been the recipient of commentary in any reliable sources. Fails WP:NF. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 03:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Baker[edit]

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

Not notable local restaurant. GHits show primarily advertising sites (YP, Yelp) and social media. GNews show all local coverage. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. No refs. Promotional tone. GregJackP Boomer! 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only found local coverage, which is to be expected. SL93 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sourcing as far as I can tell. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify inclusion. Also, the article is written too much like an ad. Andrew³²⁷ 15:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior (M.P.)[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. A board of education that is not attached to any particular place, but appears to be set to provide national level examinations? Their own website is so poorly written as to make it difficult to ascertain what they do, and this article is largely a copy of their own website. (WP:CSD#G12 may well apply.) Article has been deleted previously (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Board of Secondary Education,Madhya Bharat,Gwalior), but since I don't have access to the deleted article, I don't know of WP:CSD#G4 applies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NON-NOTABLE.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 13:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K. Raveendran[edit]

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

Unnotable journalist, possible wP:COI issues with User:Fahian and user:Vyshmail. WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. This journalist is hardly notable and the only sources are his own websites.--Forward Unto Dawn 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 1. Snotbot t • c » 14:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to locate any significant independent reliable source coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Legend of Zorro 14:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per arguments above, non-notable, lacks WP:RS. - Jethwarp (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Wright[edit]

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

No WP:Reliable sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does not IMDB count as a fairly commonplace source for actresses? Are you stating that it does not have enough sources or what might I be missing in this proposal? Judicatus | Talk 19:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film databases like IMDb and IAFD are not considered reliable sources for biographical information and they do not count as significant reliable source coverage for establishing notability. Right now, the article has nothing substantial or reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any current Wikipedia policy that states that "IAFD is not considered a reliable source for biographical information" or that IAFD "does not count as significant reliable source coverage for establishing notability". The relevant portion of the Pornography Project's guidance states that the "Internet Adult Film Database...Their filmographies are considered reliable, but opinion is split on whether their biographical information is reliable". The real issue here is does this article satisfy PORNBIO. One could make an argument that Ms. Wright "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", but I have not done a whole lot of research on her. Guy1890 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How has the IMDB been determined to not fit the description of a reliable source? I do not question that this article fails WP:N in this case but I am curious on the IMDB determination. Is it due to exceedingly expansive inclusitivity on the part of IMDB? In that case would it simply just be a case of non-establishment of notability requirement and not a reliability requirement being met? Judicatus | Talk 02:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally not a big fan of the Wikipedia guidance on using IMDB as a source, but the guidelines are reasonably clear on what they really mean. Guy1890 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was doing research on WP:RSN archives and discovered the controversy regarding IMDB as well. I appreciate the response Judicatus | Talk 00:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There used to be content sourced to the semi-reliable Adult Video News, but a SPA named Randiwright16 removed it. I could not find other reliable sources in searches. AVN coverage alone is not enough for WP:GNG. Fails WP:PORNBIO without significant awards or nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per argument outlined by Gene93k above. Finnegas (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to James Bond in film#Future. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bond 24[edit]

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

As per WP:MOVIE. There is little more than gossip so far, with very little from the producers. The same situation happened with the Bond 23 AfD, until the official release of the name. SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As per Betty Logan and Robsinden, I would happily support a re-direct to James Bond in film#Future. A re-direct to the James Bond in film page was also what happened before the release of the Skyfall name, again as per WP:NFF, when there was as much, if not more, media coverage of the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bond 23 (as it was then) had no confirmed information and was written seven years before release. Bond 24 has been scheduled for a 2015 release and has plenty of confirmed info from the producers themselves as well as other reputable sources. Isn't this far from similar? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't get why every time an article on a future article pops up on namespace, someone has to cite WP:NFF or WP:CRYSTAL. Especially for cases like this, we should be looking at this policy instead. We do not have to stick to same old policy every time and each AfD discussion has its own merits and warrants its own results. Since SchroCat has cited Bond 23, let's talk Bond 23. This diff shows how it was in 2008, four years before release. Does it look anything like what Bond 24 is like now? Put it short and sweet, merging/redirecting/deleting this does the project more harm than good. Hence my !vote choice. Thank you, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect was also used on the Skyfall page prior to the release of the film's name. I fail to see how redirecting to another article "does the project more harm than good". The James Bond in film#Future section holds the same reliable information as this page. The only additional information this page holds is from the gossip mills and rumour mongers. WP:NFF is there specifically to stop the inclusion of such nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Bond Project discssions. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject films discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official details have been officially revealed by Eon, so it's not really "hype". ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll also add that Bond 24 is misleading: there are twenty five Bond films in existence, so by one measure this is Bond 26. - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's what the media refers it to. Not many laypeople actually recognise those two non-Eon ones. So these is the official "Bond 24". ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just stick to discussing the notability of the article for now. Regardless of the fact that "Bond 24" is not actually the 24th Bond film, it will still be perceived and reported as the next film, and once there is sufficient content for the article presumably that will be its WP:COMMONNAME until it is moved to the permanent title. Betty Logan (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Bond in film#Bond 24 and future. It clearly fails WP:NFF since filming has not begun, and at the moment it is just a series of announcements by Eon Productions. Point #5 of WP:CRYSTAL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors ... short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic". Until we can offer encyclopedic coverage of the production i.e. write about things that have happened as opposed to things that will happen the content should be merged into the series article, and the page redirected to the appropriate section of that article. Betty Logan (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is DYK-worthy at more than 1500 chars. long, have you noticed? This article is not just a collection of rumours... We have confirmed news from Eon, the official production company. What has happened? Daniel Craig has been casted, that's what. A release date in the UK and the US has been set. This provides the typical Wikipedia reader a lot of knowledge about Bond 24. Do you think he will benefit more if this were to be redirected? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of which points are covered in James Bond in film#Bond 24 and future, which doesn't include the unfounded gossip (Cruz rumours) and assumptions (Fiennes and Wishaw) that this page has.- SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about the budget, the US release date, the part about Bond 24 being a two-parter initially? You should rightfully admit that this article offers at least twice more than what the proposed merge target has. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation should not be included in either article, and anything that is confirmed by the producers can—and should—be added to the series article. Content can be determined on its own particular merits and is incidental to this discussion. Our guidelines say announcements may warrant coverage, but do not warrant an article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements do warrant an article in some instances... Given the overwhelming media coverage for Bond 24, why not? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no way a reader's understanding of Bond 24 will increase by merging the content. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this clearly meets WP:GNG. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no way a reader's understanding of Bond 24 will increase by the stand alone article at this stage, apart from the additional gossip element and assumptions. Have you got sources for Wishaw, Harris or Fiennes? Have you got an official source that confirms Cruz or the $100 million budget? (Given the profit from Skyfall, which was made on $150-200 million, it seems unlikely that they would cut the budget to $100 million. Any reliable source for it being US produced, or for the Devil May Care title? - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a film in the pre-production stage generates encylopedic coverage aside from regular publicity announcments then that would be one reason to invoke an exception. Maybe one famous instance of this would be the "search for Scarlett" when casting Gone with the Wind which became a huge news story in its own right i.e. the story would still have been notable regardless of whether the film was actually made or not. The key question here, is if the film were cancelled would the article in its current form survive an AfD? I don't think it would, because it is just a series of announcements that can be adequately covered by the main series article. A reader's understanding of the topic certainly wouldn't be undermined by merging the content since it would still be there; likewise I don't see how an article consisting entirely of announcements "improves the encyclopedia" either. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I don't like to say that this will happen, but c'mon, it's Bond! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same Bond series that was put on hold in 2010 and nearly didn't come back? Or the same Bond series that was on hold for six years after Licence to Kill, despite an on-going desire to work on a new film? - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But did it not happen after all? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Things like budget and release date are highly subject to change. Most of the rest is a rundown of rumours and announcements, many of which have been rescinded - Sam Mendes won't direct! Oh wait yes he will! It might be a two-parter! But it probably won't! We should wait until we have facts, and not report speculation. And claiming it should be kept because it's 1500 characters long is ridiculous when most of those characters are contradicting each other. If you cut out the untruths it'd be much much shorter. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't take a crystal ball to know this movie will be made. It's just a matter of time before more details emerge. I think Bonkers The Clown makes a better argument. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts NJLiz. Can you outline on which policy you are basing your thoughts? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess like others have pointed out, I'd mention WP:GNG. Newjerseyliz (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the clown. Lots of information announced, however unfinal, makes for an article meeting WP:GNG. I'd also be inclined to cite WP:IAR because of the subject, but I don't think such drastic measures are necessary. Ansh6 6 6 21:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Bond in film#Future, as this fails WP:NFF but guideline states "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With this much concrete information (eg release dates etc), this is now a tangible project that has crossed over from WP:CRYSTAL territory. I don't think there is any doubt this is a notable project. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had exactly the same information at this stage of Skyfall (director, release date and precious little else) and still managed not to start an article until the name was released. The Bond 24 name is misleading and so unencyclopaedic that it's embarrassing that it's even a subject under discussion. As per the same situation we had at this stage with Skyfall, a redirect to James Bond in film#Future covers the non-gossip aspects of the film. I'm staggered to think that WP:NFF is left unconsidered here: it's there for exactly this situation and it's one that we stick to consistently. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep mentioning Skyfall? There are many other cases in which then-unreleased films were kept. Every article has its own merits. I personally have considered NFF, but note that NFF is a secondary guideline and immense GNG is enough to swamp that. See also: WP:FFEXCEPTIONS ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF are here is to avoid creating articles on films that never see the light of day. And there are plenty of those. There is little doubt that this film, part of a highly anticipated and popular franchise, is going to happen, and shooting will commence in a few months, so I don't see the problem. Exactly like HP6, where the article has existed properly since July 2005 whilst principal photography only began on 24 September 2007; similarly, HP7A has existed properly since 2007 whilst principal photography only began on 19 February 2009. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, after at least the titles, plots and majority of the cast were known? Potter was part of an ongoing story arc closely modelled on the stories; Bond 26 is a stand alone story where all that is known is director, release date and 2 cast members. - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I note this. It's WP:CANVASSING and I don't want to see it again: I will not hesitate to take further action if I see you trying to pull that stunt again. Secondly, the reason for mentioning Skyfall is that it is a parallel case. At about the same time in the film's development we kept all the information on the James Bond in film page until the film's name was released. We certainly did not plaster up a page of gossip on a misleadingly titled page. If you look at the reliably sourced and known information on the Bond 24 page, there is nothing additional to the James Bond in film#Future section. The problem with a standalone article is that it attracts fluff and gossip - as can be seen from the number of tags which had to be inserted here (let alone the amount of information that had already been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only canvassing when the request is posted on numerous talk pages. Moreover, I don't seem to be on the losing end in this discussion, am I? I asked MichaelQSchmidt to pitch in because he's a regular at AfD and an experienced editor. I've never asked him to !vote keep, just asked for his opinion on this, simple as that. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so: canvassing can be on limited pages. I am not on the losing end either: this is not a vote, it's supposed to come to a consensus based on policy and guidelines, not just vote counting. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. Way too early to have an article on it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's scheduled for a 2015 release... When will "early" become not so? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When principal photography starts, as per WP:NFF. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Bond in film#Future, as clearly fails WP:NFF. An encyclopaedia should be based on established facts, not fanzine gossip and Chinese whispers. -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the notability guidelines for future films. There is hardly a wealth of information here that would warrant splitting into a stand-alone article, especially for a film that may or may not be produced. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NFF in WP:MOVIE: production has not begun, and there isn't even a title, not to mention lack of reliable sources on two of a very short list of four cast members. The "DYK-worthy" argument above doesn't hold water, since it's too short for DYK as it is (and even shorter given extensive duplication between intro and body), and articles that might otherwise pass DYK do fail for notability reasons, either through deletion or merger—DYK should not be cited in AfD arguments, as DYK depends on AfD to help determine notability in questionable cases. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of births, marriages and deaths in Eastenders[edit]

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

I fail to see how this is anything other than WP:FANCRUFT. Doesn't meet WP:GNG Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Delete per WP:Fancruft and lack of reliable independent sources covering this somewhat peculiar topic. The article is built on a source from the producer BBC, so it's verified, but I tend see that BBC article more as promotion for their own series than a normal journalistic piece. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So fancrufty that...actually, I can't think of anything clever. It's really fancrufty. I suppose we could redirect to EastEnders to stop the cruft crew from rebuilding. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not here to retell fictional stories, I guess that would fall under fancruft. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that an article on this topic was deleted previously at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders) and that the content of this page seems to be taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders, which is retained for purely reference use. Ideally we should do a history merge of that page with this one, but I'm not going to bother because this page is going to be deleted. Hut 8.5 16:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon Linux[edit]

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

Yet another Ubuntu fork. I googled a bit for WP:RS, but I couldn't find anything that established WP:N for this one. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability for this OS fork. Article lacks refs. A search reveals no RS coverage. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, not notable, at least not yet. Dolescum (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anybody is free to recreate this on Wiktionary. The content was "Point on the surface of the Earth directly between the satellite and the geocenter", and the contributor was Mr Faith. Sandstein 06:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-satellite point (SSP)[edit]

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

Bad page name and it is a definition only. No redir needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wiktionary -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, whether or not it is moved to Wiktionary. Article has zero sources, and is nothing more than a definition.N2e (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Per WP:NOTDICDEF, it is unsuitable as it is for Wikipedia, but may be useful on our sister site. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rabilizirov[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:PROF. Might be a vanity page (created by an SPA). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 08:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Based on this Google scholar search, the subject has an h-index of 6 (but that could be artificially low due to different romanizations of the name). I don't think being a fellow of the Russian Academy of Sciences in itself is enough to confer a pass under WP:PROF, but I could easily see how it could (but then I would expect that there would be other evidence of notability, such as high GS cites). Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. What the article touts as his signature achievement (the recognition of fullerenes in interstellar dust) has too few citations to be noteworthy, and his claim to be "the first" is dubious (his paper was published in 1986; Ivars Peterson was already publicizing the role of fullerenes in interstellar dust in Science News in 1985). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows 5 papers, around 40 total citations with h-index 3 (assuming no issues with surname). The assertion David mentioned is certainly a claim of notability, but the citation is his own paper. Agricola44 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. Could not find much in cyrillic either. The low impact is compounded by low production, with papers going back to the 1980s.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relative orders of magnitude (length)[edit]

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

Unsourced collection of a few pairs of points from Orders of magnitude (length). An unlikely title or concept for anyone to search for, and contains nothing encyclopedic. PROD was removed by original creator. PamD 07:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creator here. Actually I see arguments on both sides of this, and I'm not going to be partisan here. Let me just present the strengths and weaknesses. Since I'm busy outside WP, I'll come back in a bit to see what decision you made.

Strength: I just think that this is a very, very interesting way to present the powers of ten. That's why I started the article. Imagine this list once it's filled in. You scroll to 10^3 in the left column, and immediately see that the ratio of mouse height to sequoia height, the diameter of the moon to that of the sun, and the height of a human to that of the world's tallest building are all the same number, 10^3. (I made up those numbers.) Who could forget the meaning of 10^3 at that point? In my opinion, this will become more apparent once the article has grown some more.

If I recall, PamD has tagged the article as "not encyclopedic" and "unsourced." I would at least phrase that differently. To the extent that these criticisms apply to this article, they also apply to our longstanding article on Orders of magnitude (length). There are no real sources in that article other than authorities for the lengths, which could be done here. The real difference, I think, is that there are a lot of other sources that have attempted to present powers of ten as they've been done in Orders of magnitude (length); by contrast, no other source (to my knowledge) presents orders of magnitude like they're done in this article. But this is not what makes Orders of magnitude (length) encyclopedic, and it does not make this article un-encyclopedic. Wikipedia certainly has a large number of articles which don't have precedent in existing encyclopedias, for example many of our "list" and "outline" articles.

Weakness: One weakness that I admit to (and don't have a good answer to) is that there is no limiting principle on what objects will get compared with which objects. Say that you have the lengths of twenty objects. You do the "handshake problem" and that means (I think) there are 190 relationships -- 190 rows in the table. If the table fills up like this, then the article could become arbitrarily long. Perhaps you could have some arbitrary convention to keep it shorter, which is arguably what we already do at Orders of magnitude (length). The problem is that while adding new measurements makes that article grow linearly, it makes this one grow geometrically. Yet keeping things out of this article would be unsatisfactory because, well, the whole POINT is to learn about as many different relationships between as many different measurements as possible. That's what makes it interesting.
Conclusion: I see imperfections in this article, but to my mind these are not fatal. Nevertheless, more importantly I think this is a good way of displaying the information. So if you ultimately end up deleting this article, that is fine, but then I will appreciate some feedback on where else I can take this on the web to make it happen. It has crossed my mind for example that I might put this into a database and create my own website. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Thanks. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 09:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything useful could be merged to Orders of magnitude (length), perhaps even a table like User:Agradman suggests at the end of the article. Whilst it is nice, I don't think it warrants its own article.Martin451 (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of arbitrary worked examples are inappropriate per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Warden (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Hot 100 Songs of the Decade (2000s)[edit]

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

Also included in this nomination:

Exact copies of entire lists only found in the primary source: the end-of-decade issue of Billboard magazine from December 19, 2009. According to the cover (here's an image from fanpop.com), there are potentially 250 such charts that can be duplicated here should these be kept. The issue can obviously be used as a source on individual song/album/artist articles for the various chart positions, but to duplicate multiple lists in their entirety from that one issue seems to be going into WP:IINFO territory. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced the list is notable in terms of having received significant third party coverage (I did find a bit of press coverage in not very significant magazines) but that would be justification (or not) for an article on the list, not repeating the list. Duplicating entire lists (aside from worries about copyright) is not the purpose of Wikipedia (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably a copyvio, and unnotable anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this is a copyvio. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this is a top 100 chart of the entire decade based on the same criteria as the Billboard Top 100. We can reprint those because they are based entirely on facts - radio play and sales (if they were opinion lists we wouldn't be able to reprint them.) WP:IANAL. As to notability, I hadn't heard of this, but what do I know? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What facts? It seems to me it's some sort of ranking formula concocted by Billboard. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Trauma Air Rescue Society[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable air rescue service. I didn't find much in the way of reliable, independent sources, and the article has only one. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The service actually has a TON of significant coverage from reliable sources.[9] I added half a dozen references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yeah, the article was pretty sparse in terms of sources when it was nominated but there are plenty there now. Would seem to pass WP:GNG/WP:ORGDEPTH without too much trouble. Stalwart111 10:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has now been shown. SL93 (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asturix[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: AfD header added. User:OsmanRF34 is the apparent nominator. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 1. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: first of all, Wikipedia:N#Notability_is_not_temporary, so it's not active, but it STILL deserve a place on Wikipedia. And it's fully noteable because...: (I'm going to use what it says here)

"Significant coverage": it has been very coveraged. As you see, it has been coveraged by Televisión Española, Linux Magazine, Onda Cero, DistroWatch, La Nueva España, and so on. It makes it REALLY noteable.
"Reliable": all the sources that are here are full reliable. Most of them are from the official websites of the source.
"Sources": you only have to see the number of sources...
"Independent of the subject": I think this article is unbiased. If you don't think the same you can edit it.
"Presumed": I think this distribution deserve a site on Wikipedia. It's only my opinion but the sources talk for me.

--Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 23:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the WP:NSOFT claim, I would say that the rules, as in WP:NSOFT, say "The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field.". DistroWatch or Linux Magazine can be considered reliable sources in its field. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 18:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's important to note that Asturix is an association, so WP:NSOFT don't work very well here. Perphaps it work with the "Asturix OS" section, but it itself is not enough to destroy all the article. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 19:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, WP:NSOFT for the section about the OS, WP:ORG for the organization as a whole. To be honest, I think you're better off sticking with WP:NSOFT, as that seems to be closer to being fulfilled here. Ansh6 6 6 21:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator, OsmanRF34, is showing a biased, personal behavior. Yesterday he entered in the Spanish Wikipedia article of Asturix and mark it to a speedy deletion (1), without giving any explanation. He did the same in the English Wikipedia page (2). The old Spanish Wikipedia article was deleted because he did the same: speedy deletion, and then it was deleted because anybody notice that speedy deletion notice. He tries to do everything through the fast way. No debates, no questions. Why is OsmanRF34 behaving in that way? Does s/he have any interest? Does s/he have a WP:JDLI attitude? What's more, he tried to do a proposed deletion that was rejected by an admin, as the admin thought that he was doing a WP:POINT, because OsmanRF34 has done a lot of non-sense deletion nominations (3). Which interests does OsmanRF34 have? Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 17:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: The nominator, OsmanRF34, was eventually found guilty on suckpuppeting (1). He used a puppet in the last deletion nomination debate. I think that it makes the last debate, at least, "controversial". He used a puppet (User:Olmerta) to get a WP:SNOW situation. We should think about the legitimacy of the last debate. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make his comments any less valid. I don't think it wouldn't have been kept even if he didn't. Ansh6 6 6 22:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AfD, linked above. If the content is substantially the same, it can be speedied per WP:CSD#G4. Ansh6 6 6 02:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Osman below on this. It looks like it fails WP:NSOFT and WP:NOTNEWS to me (although my standards on the latter are admittedly rather high). Ansh6 6 6 18:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though this article was deleted before as not notable, the current refs cited include some complete articles on the distro in reliable sources, showing that the article now meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete. Some complete articles appeared in Hecticgeek. This was already discussed in the last successful AfD. The page looks like a one-man show blog, posting about this and everything. Equally, it should be taken into account what was said about DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking in the previous discussion, which, by my standards was pretty complete one. Linux mag was indeed a blog on Linux mag, mentioning the existence of yet another Linux distro.

Since this is an OS WP:NSOFT has to be applied here. Specially the part about "The state of the software itself. " This software is not being developed. It could not attain notability being dead. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 44 is a detailed review in an independent third party publication, as is Ref 26, Ref 14 and Ref 2. Those alone are enough to establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me not, according to WP:NSOFT (which is a different kind of notability, adapted to assess software): it has to stand out of the crowd, which in a crowded niche, like the field of Linux distros is not the case. Another point is the state of the software, although an inactive project with historical significance would be notable, I don't see why Asturix would be a more advanced level of anything. Add to that that "a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable. Stories on software as the product of a local company in a small region may not be evidence of notability. The source of the reporting is important to evaluating whether the software is only important to a limited geographical scope." Asturix has a real problem here, when ti comes down to NSOFT and not only N. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ahunt. The matter is not what you think. The rules, as in WP:NSOFT, say "The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field.". DistroWatch or Linux Magazine can be considered reliable sources in its field. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 17:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Going to have to say the new sourcing meets GNG, while a lot of the sources are connected, for "History" that is acceptable and while I would like to see more critical reception the article has a the presumption that other sources can and do exist. Secondly, coverage in foreign media is perfectly acceptable, regional television and magazines and major websites all count towards GNG. We have several sources which all show notability and that is why this article should be kept. Also NRVE applies. So I'm going to go against my previous delete rational since the improvements have contributed to meeting N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NSOFT should be applied. The sources are announcing the release, not assessing its importance, analyzing its significance. They are restricted to a one-off event, which does not imply notability. If this were not software, maybe it would be notable. But software dies. And in this case without leaving a trace. The PR-guy of Asturix keeps pushing and quoting Linux Mag, but not mentioning that its a blog post, about one of the 'developers', and not a real analysis. The issued with DistroWatch has already been dealt with in the previous AfD (among many other flaws).

I'm not surprised that User:Kikichugirl tagged that article as advertising 12 minutes after its creation. Richiguada remove the tag in 20 minutes.

All who care to read the article and the source will see what a blatant advertising this thing is, of a dead project, in a vain attempt to drag attention to other project of the 'developers.' OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't try to confuse to the voters. First of all, it's NOT a dead project. The article didn't say it anywhere. So, please, don't make up anything. And this is NOT software. The article is dedicated to an association, NOT software. And if you want to tag the article as an advert, simply do it. I only deleted it because I made some changes, and I considered deleting it. Nothing wrong with it. You are acting as a clear WP:JDLI. Stop confusing, please. Give reason, not personal attacks (WP:NPA). We are talking about the article, not about my behavior. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 21:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't say that, and the text that could be interpreted as such is unsourced...was that planned on your part perhaps?

Anyhow, why didn't you tell us to use WP:ORG in the first AfD or even until now? To me, it looks like you're ignoring the problem and trying to find a completely different thing to argue. I also fail to see a personal attack in there. Strong language, maybe, but not a personal attack - he's questioning a possible WP:COI. I'd also like to remind you that accusing someone of making a personal attack is in itself a personal attack. Ansh6 6 6 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about deleting this article. You can use WP:ORG or WP:NSOFT, as you want. The article talk mainly about the SO. Of course that there aren't any sources about the OS because I haven't made well that part. I consider a fake COI a personal attack. If in your view I am doing this as a "strategy", ok, congrats. If you think so, who am I to say that's wrong? Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 22:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if the article is about an association called Asturix it's even a clearer case of non-notability. The sources assert that an OS adaptation has been released, but there is nothing there that would make this association notable. Have they produced anything of value? Notability is not predictive, and it's not based on expectations. Summarizing: as software it's dead. If the reports were about it as an association then maybe, but they are not. As an association it is lousy too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As a NPP, I saw it as not really qualifying for G11 since it had some sources, so I tagged the article as reading like an advertisement. And it still reads like an advertisement. It has potential for improvement if someone will rewrite the promotional stuff (namely the History section) but I'm not sure if it should be kept or deleted. — kikichugirl ^inquire 20:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sp-wp version of Asturix was also deleted and re-created recently by Richiguada. There she also changed from "Asturix is an OS" to "Asturix is an association." Basically, the page is the same. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sp-wp version of Asturix was also deleted without having any debate and re-created recently by myself. I re-created the article from scratch (the sp-wp and en-wp versions are the same). Basically, the page is completely different from the deleted one. Note the change in sources. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 23:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted website: (es-wp) http://web.archive.org/web/20130128070030/http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturix (en-wp) http://web.archive.org/web/20130308114242/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturix
Current website: (es-wp) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturix (en-wp) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturix

Comment: I fail to see what means "also deleted without having any dabate" (sic). There is plenty of good arguments for deleting the previous versions, and the new one seems even worse than that. Is Richiguada claiming that this is a notable org or notable software? She should clarify, so we can check the supposed sources that establish N. And, if Asturix were well-known and notable in Spain, the page wouldn't be gone. 23:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"if Asturix were well-known and notable in Spain, the page wouldn't be gone." Great fallacy. Superb one. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 23:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. Thanks for the English lesson, Osman. As we have seen, you are magician, since you can guess the gender of the people without any source. Nice magic, indeed. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 23:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find if of the utmost importance to know if this is about a supposedly notable organization or supposedly notable OS. We have to decide if we apply NORG or NSOFT. I still maintain that in both cases the result is delete. To keep the discussion going could be kind of unproductive otherwise. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think generally far too much weight is put on this, when dealing with internet-related properties. I'm personally much more interested in preventing harm than simply following rules. The key question I ask in these debates is "would the world be better off if this article is removed?". In some cases the answer is clearly "yes", spam articles, hate mongering, link bait and Google rankers are all examples of articles who's removal improves the world. On the flip side, there are many articles who's presence is all positive, in spite of violating any hard and fast rules about NOTE. I'm not sure where I stand on this particular case, I see reasonable arguments on both sides. But simply appealing to NORG and NSOFT doesn't help, IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tone it a little bit down. We shouldn't follow WP:ORG, WP:NSOFT or also WP:NOTNEWS blindly, but just use them as guidelines. Even if an article doesn't meet them, the world won't necessarily be better off without it. But in this case, we have here a rather convoluted article, about an association which got supposedly notable customizing an OS (not produced by the association itself). Said OS-customization is not being developed anymore, and the association is into an assorted number of projects, which are as little notable as the association (the sources are announcements about the releases of the different OS versions. Indeed, if the world is better off knowing about the existence of Asturix, it could be included as an item in some list of Linux versions, but it doesn't deserve a whole page, just to promote a minor association that shares the name of a dead software project. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Maury Morkowitz. Your position is nearly (if isn't) a WP:JDLI attitude. You don't like this derivative, ok. It doesn't give you the right to attack without giving reasons. Only saying that is a NSOFT or ORG simply isn't enough (IMO, of course). All the reasons you say are opinions (not factual data). Your attitude is a classic WP:JDLI one. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 12:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of arguments in this and in the past AfD. But yes, I didn't say all: there's still the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, WP is also not for advertising your projects and WP is not your web-hosting to showcase your projects. Indeed, I think WP will be better without this page. It's not only the notability. But a page for an association namely related to a defunct OS customization is really not what the world needs. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny story. So, is Asturix my project? Please, stop lying. If you can't argue, don't make up. And your quote "Indeed, I think WP will be better without this page. It's not only the notability. But a page for an association namely related to a defunct OS customization is really not what the world needs" fits with a WP:JDLI attitude. I think I should use your quote as an example. Thanks for sharing it! Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 17:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it's WP:JDLI; it's more an attempt to follow guidelines as closely as possible. And please, WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Ansh6 6 6 18:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the more I read about it, the more I dislike it. Richiguada, besides of been a single-purpose account, has created several profiles around the internet to promote Asturix, there's even a user in Asturix called richiguada, who self-identify as "Delegate of communication." That's huge COI and denying it doesn't make him look good. In Twitter and in Youtube that should be OK, but here is not the place for self-promotion.

That's completely false. Do you have any proof? Are you well? I think you are being "a little" paranoid. I created my Wikipedia account in 17 oct 2009 (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Registro/Richiguada), when I didn't know anything about Asturix, because it was a "user project". If you want to mix up,thing, you are free to do it. But, please, don't make up anything. Be polite. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 22:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agreed with Maury Markowitz above about following the rules according to its spirit, it's difficult to fit Asturix into them. For example, the No inherent/ed notability seems to apply quite well here to Asturix as an association. Is there any single source explaining why the association is notable? Or did Richiguada just think that since the OS is supposedly notable (it's not, but let's suppose), the association is also N? Because even then that won't be enough. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as an alternative to a full-delete, we could delete the advertisement part regarding the association and merge some information about the existence of Asturix into some list of Linux distributions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Richiguada has deleted my previous comment here: see history and also tried to delete comments from the Asturix talk page: talk-page history. I suppose they are good arguments, otherwise, why delete them? OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: although Richiguada claimed above I am behind the deletion of the Sp. WP Asturix article, I have nothing to do with it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzman Records[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage and the article about the founder of this record label was speedy deleted. SL93 (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gong show 02:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gong show 02:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of notability indicated by no use of third-party sources, appears to fail WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following two relistings. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Fre$h[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Koala15 (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 18. Snotbot t • c » 04:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, though claiming a record for "breaking the most eggs on his head" is certainly a unique attempt to claim notability as a recording artist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't even know where to start with this except that it needs to go. The egg-breaking "record" isn't even true, according to the Huffington Post and Corpus Christi Caller, among other, less-verifiable sources. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Bridge College[edit]

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

This article's history of COI editing casts its neutrality in serious doubt. Suggest again redirecting to Tiffin University. —rybec 06:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't neutrality (that can be fixed), it's notability (that can't). Redirect per nom, and salt the redirect page if there is a problem with people restoring the article. We do recognize degree granting institutions, but this isn't one; "The College awards its graduates degrees through Tiffin University" according to the article. And in a Yahoo News reference that I found, it is referred to as "Ivy Bridge College of Tiffin University." --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I notice that the information about the college is already in the Tiffin University article (I trimmed a little of the puffery), so a merge isn't necessary. And if we need further evidence that the place is not independent or notable on its own, notice its web address: http://ivybridge.tiffin.edu . --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - neutrality questions are best dealt with by careful editing. The question of notability is what is pertinent. This is undoubtedly a constituent college of Tiffin University. However, that doesn't mean that there can't be a separate article, we decide on such colleges on a case by case basis. Some colleges, and faculties for that matter, are merged into their parent university and some have their own pages. In this case this College does seem to have enough reliable sources coverage to stand up notability and there are more sources that can be added. (Interestingly, it is better sourced than its parent university!) On balance, therefore, 'Keep' seems justified. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Votorantim Group. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votorantim Metais[edit]

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

This article was created by a prolific sockmaster user:Edson Rosa who created a number of non-notable articles. I cannot find any sources to support the notability of this article but there may be some Brazilian sources I cannot find. I am One of Many (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Votorantim Group. Nothing here to assert why this subsidiary is notable, but perhaps could be useful as a search term to get to the main article of the corporation itself. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIMSA[edit]

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

This article was created by a prolific sockmaster user:Edson Rosa who created a number of non-notable articles. I cannot find any sources to support the notability of this article but there may be some Puruvian sources I cannot find. There are other SIMSAs on the Internet not related to this one. I am One of Many (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queiroz Galvão[edit]

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

This article was created by a prolific sockmaster user:Edson Rosa who created a number of non-notable articles. I cannot find any sources to support the notability of this article but there may be some Brazilian sources I cannot find. I am One of Many (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Western Ramberg[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, only one source that could be counted as "substantial coverage" but little else other than passing mentions 'Delete Secret ^account 18:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG, nothing indicates why this particular referee is notable. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cementos Lima[edit]

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

This article was created by the prolific sockmaster user:Edson Rosa who created a number of non-notable articles. I can't find article that establish notability, but perhaps someone with more knowledge with companies and Peru can. In any case, it needs vetting. I am One of Many (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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