Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 August	30 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D. Matthew Millar[edit]

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

Thinly-sourced bio that verges on the promotional, with little to no substantive biographical coverage from independent, reliable sources. Article appears to have been written by the subject (User:Dmmillar). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed to find significant coverage, assertion of notability also questionable. Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline in terms of sources and notability; the fact that the principal content author appears to be the subject pushes me to Delete. Not out of philosophical ideals or vindictiveness, but since it seems unlikely we will have the type of unbiased NPOV coverage we would need to have a decent article. Martinp (talk) 17:46, 6 September 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. postdlf (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Worm[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources or establish notability. Article creator and primary (only?) editor is the author of the tools. Sources in use are primary (Shaun Olson) or unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that the Polycount news article on Wall Worm by an editor in a 3D industry news site is a reliable source.

Furthermore, there are notable Source Engine experts who are in the process of creating information on using Wall Worm for the Source Engine. When their content is published, it will likely provide the notability requirements as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Please refrain from deletion until that content can be judged. Lightcube (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure Polycount is considered a reliable source (It's used as a reference in only three articles, including this one), but besides that, the mention is referencing you directly as a member of Polycount's site. More than a single reference is needed to establish notability. -- ferret (talk) 14:47, 15 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:34, 22 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) 22:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, articles may be written, they may not WP:CRYSTALBALL until they are we can't assume they will. Caffeyw (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Does not meet WP:NSOFT guidelines, particularly "The depth of coverage in the sources should be significant and directly about the software.". Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:09, 3 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Johannes Helleland hacking incident[edit]

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

Article about a local Sex Scandal, based on an article from a tabloid NEWSPAPER. The local politican is a city councilman, not otherwise notable WP:GNG and is charged, but not convicted yet WP:PERPETRATOR. This is for the tabloids, not for an encyclopedia. Ben Ben (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article includes sources such as a full article from the Wall Street Journal about the subject, and repeated coverage from NRK, Norway's equivalent of the BBC. Such extensive and international sourcing demonstrates sufficient coverage for an article, and demonstrates that the interest of sources in this incident is not local or fleeting. The full article in the WSJ, especially, indicates that this incident has attracted significant attention internationally from reliable and independent sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you consider this article is about an event in the Silly season? WP:SENSATION or in general WP:NEWSEVENT describes this effect. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I considered that, and I'm not an inclusionist by any means. But for city-level politics to attract international attention from major publications, that's pretty unusual. If this just had a few local papers as sources, I'd be arguing to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that unusual. --Ben Ben (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Plus it appears from the article on WSJ that the story there is because of him being the son of a prominent politician. Notability is not inherited. Caffeyw (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NEVENTS. Non-notable politician being a pervert? Doesn't seem likely to have any lasting significance. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Kebabpizza (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good sourcing from both national and international press. indicating notability beyond a national story. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 21 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Question, since we cant view the WSJ article without some kind of account, can someone look to see if this is investigative in nature or if it is just menial coverage of what was reported by the other news outlets. Just bcause a notable outlet covers the issue doesnt make the issue notable. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I neither have access but the wording in the WSJ article ... according to Norwegian newspaper VG ... let me think the story was covered. --Ben Ben (talk) 17:33, 22 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) 22:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't put a whole lot of weight to the international coverage which is one article, but there was substantial coverage in Norwegian media which generated for a little time a wider debate about privacy on internet etc. It died down relatively quickly however, so it is not really persistent and having long-time impact. I see in a newspaper article now, that he will get a so-called "confession sentence" that will be either a fine or prison up to 6 months. So legally, this isn't all that much, and as a "confession sentence" there won't be an ordinary trial with witnesses etc. The guy has reportedly been sick after the story broke , and I think that per BLP guidelines about not harming an individual unnecessary we should be conservative and delete this article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negative BLP1E even if named after the event. Martinp (talk) 17:48, 6 September 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 for deletion. Merger seems to have a consensus, but no target has been decided upon; further discussion should take place. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Night hag (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This articles doesn't establish notability, and it mostly relies on primary sources. TTN (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is a pretty basic D&D creature, and sources beyond the primary source materials will be found, if looked for. bd2412 T 21:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two brief passing mentions really don't seem to be screaming notability. I could imagine the main Hag article being developed, but could this one really achieve anything more than a minor paragraph at best, if that much? TTN (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why nominate it for deletion, rather than proposing a merge? bd2412 T 22:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There didn't appear to be anything of worth that would actually bolster the parent article. Publication history doesn't really mean much if it is simply a list without more information and the ecology of this single subtype would probably end up being a minor focus if the Hag article were refocused into GA/FA material. If you are interested in sorting out a merge, I'll withdraw this. TTN (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it as a short article. Although it uses a lot of primary sources, external references show notability extending beyond those sources. However, if consensus is against this existing as a separate article, a merge into Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) would be the logical course of action. bd2412 T 01:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:GNG requires coverage in multiple secondary independent RS. The Tresca source is the only one that works.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per bd2412. BOZ (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge there is a single independent third party source (the White Dwarf), which says the drawing in the book is pretty. Piazo was licensee producing official content and hence is not independent. Fails any rational interpretation of significant coverge which is required for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the blog, per BOZ [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_hag_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29&diff=570811797&oldid=570802906 is by the game's creator and hence also not independent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per user TRPOD above. One passing mention in a single third party source is not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Note that since Planescape: Torment is a part of the Planescape official D&D setting, any mention of the game itself is regarded as primary source, and interviews from its developers are first-party, affiliated material which cannot be used to assess notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one I actually have some good 3rd party sources on. yes on the monster in question. I will start digging those up. Web Warlock (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the Xulon is a self publishing advocacy press, not a reliable published source, and has been removed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, it was not you that added the Xulon, it was another editor. sorry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Apparently, the author of the work in question "prophesied to the nation of Uganda in May, 2009 with documented miracles", surely a display of expertise in the field. Seriously, though, this is not a BLP, this is an article on a fictional creature in a role-playing game. A source whose job description is "prophetess" writing in a field where there are no rules to begin with at least demonstrates that knowledge of this particular fictional creature has leaked beyond players of the game. bd2412 T 17:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Anyone who is claiming "documented miracles" and prophecies is clearly NOT a reliable source in any manner that they have been published. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I read through that source over my lunch (mistake, nearly choked) and I wouldn't trust that woman to write about Checkers, let alone D&D. She isn't qualified and most of the material was more made up than the admitted fantasy of D&D. I have an article sitting in a box at home that discusses the D&D Night Hag (specifically D&D) in terms of Jungian archetypes and was published in an academic journal. I just have to find it. Web Warlock (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Hence my use of "seriously, though" (i.e., I realize that this author can not be taken seriously as an authority on the subject). However, I do not propose to cite this author as proof that Dungeons & Dragons is written by demons, merely to show that people outside the world of Dungeons & Dragons are aware of it. bd2412 T 17:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. But that might make it a better source for say D&D in the Popular Culture or something like that. She doesn't really talk enough about Hags for this. Web Warlock (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Granted, it's neither a great source nor a great argument. bd2412 T 17:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Just a word to say that Webwarlock's source seems really interesting, and if it allows for significant (ie too large for a merge) out-of-universe development, I might reconsider my !vote. As for self-published sources, authors must have shown expertise on the subject matter (and here "prophecies" and "miracles" are not really the subject matter). This could probably be cited to assess popularity (at least of D&D), but certainly not to assess notability as defined by WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- updated I have the reference. I am editing the article now. Web Warlock (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'updated the source I have is more suited to the D&D Hag in general, not the Night Hag specifically. Web Warlock (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, may I suggest that you also update your recommendation?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done doing research. I have over 35 years worth of books, journal articles and 3rd party magazines to go through and they are not searchable; they are in copier paper and diaper boxes in my basement.Web Warlock (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reverse the redirect back to night hag, and change the focus of the article on the creature from folklore, using the D&D books as third party coverage. There is a ton of coverage for the original concept, so this could be expanded in that area and have extraneous details like the publication history removed, and add a focus on the rules-based interpretation. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, what you want to do is merge to Nocnitsa, as this is the already existing article for the creature from folklore.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, but there's also a source in the article pointing towards alp (folklore), and since a night hag is female, it would fall under mare (folklore) according to the description in that page. In fact, almost every culture has a representation of the concept under one name or another. Look at these:
Green, Thomas A., ed. (1997). Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. pp. 588–90. ISBN 978-0874369861.

Green, Thomas A., ed. (2009). African American Folktales: Stories from the American mosaic. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 144–46. ISBN 978-0313362958.
There are also other stories referring to such a creature as an "old hag". It's all quite fascinating. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - prefer a merge with the folkloric creature - Nocnitsa not a bad target but I suspect there must be a broader term, though doesn't quite fit with mare (folklore) either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
new vote. MERGE after hours of research I don't have enough for Night Hags alone. But I do have plenty of research for Hags. So I say MERGE this to Hags. BUT I am requesting that this article NOT BE DELETED till Friday September 13. I will not have the time to do the proper edits till then and honestly waiting one week is not an imposition to ask on anyone given the amount of work I have already done and still need to do. Web Warlock (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and open a detailed discussion regarding the merge that Torchiest proposes above. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 7 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brosius[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK. Nothing notable about this person's accomplishments....William 20:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions....William 20:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

Keep While the subject may fail the specific guideline of WP:NTRACK, a cursory review shows he passes WP:GNG with multiple articles providing coverage for his high school and collegiate throwing accomplishments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep essentially per previous. Enough sustained coverage on a variety of athletic accomplishments to write and maintain an article. Martinp (talk) 17:50, 6 September 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~~Delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the instructions to not edit an AFD after closure (in this case 3+ years ago), I have noncontroversially changed Keep to Delete in Crisco's close above. At the same time as writing his close, Crisco actually deleted the article (which has since not been recreated and is redlinked) and the AFD comments are 2 deletes (including mine) + the deletion nomination. Therefore I am sure Crisco meant to write Delete and accidentally mistyped the exact opposite above. I have IAR fixed it, just in case someone else would stumble on this and be confused just as I was. --Martinp (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Calkin[edit]

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

Subject Passes WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Two-time successful candidate for local office. Has received many discernible significant coverage outside of routine campaign press coverage, such as being published in 9/2007 pg. 27-30 IEEE Spectrum for VPN standardization, then giving a keynote at IEEE Consumer Communications & Networking Conference main stage 1/9/2008 7-9 PM. Article in Texas Monthly, in as a potential candidate for state comptroller in 2015. Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete single independent source not enough, no indication that he saw anything close to success per WP:POLOUTCOMES... Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete"" per nom and Boogerpatrol (normally wouldn't bother, but since this AFD has few comments worthwhile noting that someone else has at least examined it.) Martinp (talk) 17:52, 6 September 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). further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 99 Percent Declaration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Congress 2.0[edit]

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

Non-noteworthy Occupy activity. Available sources in WP:RS appear to be limited to press releases. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of the sources meets WP:RS, and the coverage was pretty thin. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an editor with a WP:COI: I attended the event and contributed money to produce a minidocumentary about it afterward. It's crazy to have two articles with one called Continental Congress 2.0 and another called 99 Percent Declaration. Whatever is salvageable from this article should be merged into the 99% one, and then the title of this one should become a redirect. FWIW, there's a link to the documentary on the talk page of one article or the other. It might be useful to view while you deliberate. David in DC (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 99 Percent Declaration. benzband (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:59, 30 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis. The game of man in the World.[edit]

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

Non-notable game; article appears to have been created by game inventor. Zero third-party sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Absolutely no secondary or independent sources could be found about this game in my search that would indicate this is a notable game. 和DITOR E tails 22:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm half-hearted about a speedy delete on this. It's pretty obviously an attempt by the author to promote the work or at least try to get it more well-known, but it's not as blatantly obvious as some of the other stuff out there that I've seen. It's not notable enough for an entry, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:37, 30 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 Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006#Candidates in the general election. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Smither[edit]

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

Subjects fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. A one-time unsuccessful candidate for office. Received mostly routine press coverage during the campaign, but no discernible significant coverage before or since the campaign. Should be deleted or redirected to Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006#Candidates in the general election. Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006#Candidates in the general election. It is customary for a losing candidate for a federal office to be redirected to a page about the election. Enos733 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per comment above this one. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:59, 30 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. I note, aside from the arguments already below, that WP:DICT does not discuss vocabulary, but rather individual words. Glossaries have, by consensus, often been kept . That this article may need rewriting is not a reason for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singlish vocabulary[edit]

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

Delete, Wiki is not a Dictionary. Most of the phrases are unsourced and the Singlish article seems to already cover vocabulary. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:35, 22 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 22. Snotbot t • c » 02:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree something should be done, but not 100% sure deletion is the only way, since quite some alternatives were proposed in the earlier 2 deletion discussions. Curious to see the article seems to be quite actively edited be many editors. Apparently people care and maybe they just need some help on format/location of this list. Are there any new insights since the previous 2 deletion discussions? A new discussion in ignorance of the last discussion may be inefficient. LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References prove this is a real thing, and clearly notable enough to be in this encyclopedia. Dream Focus 03:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dream Focus I'm not saying Singlish should be deleted just this breakaway article on Vocabulary. See specifically this section within the Singlish article [[1]]. That's when we have to ask is it worth the duplication and ask what wiki is and what is it not? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slang by nationality shows other languages have side articles explaining the slang in their nation. It wouldn't all fit in the main article, therefore this is a valid content fork. Dream Focus 15:34, 30 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, Tito☸Dutta 19:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT or start a Singlish Wiktionary. An article on Singlish belongs in Wikipedia, a Singlish dictionary does not. --Michig (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above Wiki is not a dictionary. Article about Singlish is fine just not a dictionary. Caffeyw (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic of the article is interesting, relevant, and there are plenty of reliable sources (a number already in the references in the article, and others that could be added). Singlish differs from conventional English not only in vocabulary, but in structure, and its use in Singaporean society is fascinating as well - therefore it is not outlandish to have a subarticle on vocabulary and a master article on Singlish. Commentators referring to "not a dictionary" above are correct as to their observation, but the implication should be to cut down those elements of the article that are just a dictionary and expand the top matter even further, i.e. edit the article not delete it. Martinp (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirm my Keep !vote. Have now looked at the Singlish article. It is full of fascinating detail; this article is clearly positioned as a subarticle of it. Singlish is 107k long, so a subarticle is not a bad idea. And given the amount of structural information in the Singlish article, there is clearly benefit for the interested reader in illustrating somewhere, somehow with concrete examples of phrases, vocabulary, and their translation. The result is better understanding of Singlish, not "aid in translating a random word I overheard". Therefore the argument to delete just because it is like a dictionary does not apply. Now I agree that there's a lot of opportunity to editorially improve the structure of both this article and Singlish - but I don't see anything that has changed from the situation in the previous AFDs which resulted in Keep and No consensus closes. Martinp (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dreamfocuses comments. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki the wordlist to wiktionary and keep the prose content. Singlish could have a Singlish grammar article split out, and then it would be short enough to merge into? KleptomaniacViolet (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC) — KleptomaniacViolet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Klub Entertainment[edit]

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

This record label clearly fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches at GNews, Google and Google Books yielded some passing mentions in reliable sources but no significant coverage. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Gong show 04:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As noted in the discussion a few weeks age, the article has some problems (promotional language) but the core assertions seem to be verifiable based in Google Book sources and the label seems to be somewhat significant. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to take a closer look at those results. It's primarily fake POD books that reprint Wikipedia material, and a few directory listings that include every record label and do not indicate notability (the annual Songwriter's Market books). Buing included in Songwriter's Market is really no more notable than being included in the phone book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 30 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, Tito☸Dutta 19:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a record label with seemingly no notable artists or releases. Appears to have been created by an account with a COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Delete this article as it looks like some single purpose account here is doing some advertising for his/her label. I would suggest a block if the SPA keeps doing this bullshit. Even if it wasn't, its still not ready by any stretch of the imagination possible, in other words it WP:TOOSOON for this. Also delete per the significant coverage problems mentioned above. 和DITOR E tails 03:53, 30 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. postdlf (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Brunozzi[edit]

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

Résumé of an Amazon employee. Bianbum (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not sufficient notability to warrant an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be doing his job, which is self-promotion after all. Typical repetition of peacock words and putting "worldwide" at the end of sentences to sound important. A bit cloudy. W Nowicki (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 01:07, 31 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. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Defries[edit]

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

The subject has requested deletion at OTRS (2013082910009069 for those who have access). The subject appears to be a very minor figure in the music business and of limited notability. The article is poorly sourced and has been a hotbed for badly sourced material in breach of BLP so we should accede to the subject's request to delete. ukexpat (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very minor figure? Surely not. Guardian 2013, Guardian 2013, Observer 2011, Guardian 2011, Guardian 2010, Guardian 2001. And that is from one search. See also Google Books. AllyD (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable career. That he was involved in tax evasion also adds to his notability. I don't think it's polict to scrub the encyclopedia when subjects are engaged in improper activity. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is obviously a very major figure in the music business, as a glance at the Google Books results linked above demonstrates. The problem with the article is that it contains far too little about the successes of the 1970s to counterbalance the negative content about events that happened a long time after Defries's notable period. I would also point out that the article was originally created as a promotional puff piece, so claims of non-notability now that it has been made a bit more neutral ring rather hollow. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable career, per sources like this, this, this, etc.. Article needs major expansion, but no reason to delete. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep warpozio (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per discussion above. Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:31, 5 September 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. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

300watches[edit]

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

Trade PR puffery, non notable corporation asserting just enough notability for CSD to be declined. Fiddle Faddle 16:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly non-notable. Just an Ebay seller with 5000 sales (I've seen plenty with far far more) --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Owner of the company is member of the International Watch and Jewelry Guild (IWJG), World Wide Traders, and the National Association of Watch and Clock Collectors. That makes the portal itself important. --snehilsharma
Speedy delete—CSD A7. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bordering on WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not forcing any one in terms of promotion just name of brand, past history and media. In future it will be having elements of social responsibility.--snehilsharma

In the nut shell, future of the article will be as equal as articles of other web portals like Facebook, twitter and many others.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:09, 30 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. postdlf (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeskRoll[edit]

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

This website/software has no independent sources. I've looked for more, and I can't find anything but press releases and indiscriminate software directories. Given the lack of sources, it does not meet the general notability guidleine or the guideline on software. I initially proposed a speedy delete of this as nonnotable web content, but this is in that grey area of cloud services that both are and are not web content, so here we are. MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete—I have no qualms calling this web content... A7. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy deletion was previously contended on the basis that the product is technically innovative, but in the absence of reliable 3rd party evidence of the product and any innovation (I am only finding PR type coverage) it fails WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hi. I can't see how it is possible to establish its notability. I can't seem to find three independent reviews for it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi Everyone. I am a software developer and I can check its innovations by reading its open code. You can register on DeskRoll and try to connect to the Demo Computer (you do not need to install anything, it works in browsers). As we can see from the session page https://lime.deskroll.com/en.12477/21185098065220d88a2c2e4/ (line 2086) it uses WebRTC. Moreover, it tries to fix the beta state of WebRTC by emulation a stream protocol. I understand that it is my mistake that the wiki article is unfinished, but as far as I know now three articles about this product are being prepared. The first one is going to be on this blog http://bloggeek.me/webrtc-interviews/. So please, give me a couple of weeks and I will add independent sources into the article. Thanks, Eugen (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC) — EHartmann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. • Please, consider my contributons to ru.wikipedia - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4/EHartmann Russian is my native language. I made my first contribution to wikipedia at the beginning of 2012. I have very specific interests - genetic genealogy and remote desktop software. My account is not for spam.[reply]
Delete Thanks to EHartmann for the good work, but this particular topic is WP:TOOSOON. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:39, 31 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MUSH (e-mail client)[edit]

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

No indication of how this orphaned topic might meet notability guidelines. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Only reference provided is to the author's personal website. RadioFan (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will work to add more source references. It's challenging, as when MUSH was most popular, the WWW hadn't been invented yet and many of the things written about it were in paper magazines. Look for regular progress towards a complete article. I'm also hoping other editors will add additional content beyond my knowledge of it. Slaurel (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page now includes more content (won't claim _good_ content) than either the dominant mail client from 1986-1995, Elm, or the current dominant text mail client, Mutt, and additional external references. Slaurel (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hi. The article has very little in the way of verifiability, too far from enough. We cannot even verify if it is created yesterday or indeed has been around since before "WWW" (world wide web?) Notability guideline compliance is at zero. I have no prejudice against userification or re-creation when secondary sources were found and notability was established. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I have dim memories of this software from back in the day, but I'm just not finding the reliable sources that would justify an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I'm feeling discouraged from attempting to add material to wikipedia. If it's going to feel like a war just to get a new page established then it's not going to be enjoyable to try and participate. I'm trying to learn the subtleties of the various guidelines, but it's not a trivial matter, and it seems like people are saying "I've never heard of it, so it shouldn't be an article.". Here's a link to the CVS history from NetBSD Pkgsrc which shows mush was first included in the packaging system there in 1998. [[2]] - I think that should make it clear that mush wasn't written (or invented) yesterday - as well as the reference from the mutt documentation that features from mush were part of the inspiration for mutt (the most popular current text mail user agent, for those wikipedia editors who are not familiar with Unix).

Perhaps Usenet discussions from 1999 would help? [[3]] [[4]] Or the first Usenet post, from May 6th, 1989 - announcing the relocation of the discussion group from a private MIT mailing list to Usenet: [[5]] There are over a thousand discussion threads available on google groups from that 1989 message onwards. comp.mail.mush was the newsgroup dedicated for the discussion of this software. Slaurel (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that none of the above addresses the Notability question - but do articles really have to be noteworthy to the general public, or is it sufficient to be noteworthy to experts in the relevant field? There aren't going to be a lot of web documents discussing mush, at least until (if ever), the print magazines of that era are digitized and made available online. Slaurel (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a couple of things here. First, please dont be discouraged. You've picked a tough topic to contribute on, verifiability is going to be tough to meet. The USENET posts you cite above establish that the software exists, but doesn't address notability concerns. USENET posts are going to be treated like blog posts for purposes of determining their reliability. Unfortunately those are not reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I posted these potential WP:RS at Slaurel's talk page as well.

Google books reports The Z-Mail Handbook mentions mush on 67 pages. Looks like you can pick it up used for $0.01 at Amazon (plus shipping) or you might be able to find a library nearby. You might also want to grab Ken Rosen's Unix System V Release 4: An Introduction and Linda Lamb's Using Email Effectively: both have at least a paragraph devoted to mush, and both would be considered reliable, independent third-party sources.

I don't have access to these and don't know if it's enough to warrant keeping the article. My preference at the moment remains deletion and reconstructing the article later if the cites (and others?) pan out. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to post that material here so all can see it and consider it as a part of the discussion. Ultimately the decision to keep or delete is going to be made by an admin based on the discussion here, not on individuals talk pages.--RadioFan (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—text above updated with links. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've ordered the three books that User:Lesser Cartographies suggested, used from Amazon. I'll add the references when they arrive. Slaurel (talk) 03:49, 5 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ryan (music video producer)[edit]

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

Largely promotional (though not enough so to qualify for G11), relying almost exclusively on primary sources. Some Googling didn't turn up any obvious secondary coverage, leading me to strongly doubt that he passes notability. Also, as far as I can tell all of the interwiki links are fake, which often is a sign of exaggeration or misrepresentation in an article. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this hits a week without anyone else commenting, I'd just like to note that I'd rather see it soft-deleted than relisted. Obviously the decision is up to the reviewing admin, but I'd appreciate if this weren't blindly relisted by a non-admin. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his main claim to notability seems to be producing videos for Diamond (rapper), but I can't realistically accept his own primary sources to accept a merge into the other article. A search for anything else is make hard by the fact there are several Mike Ryans out there, including a Dr Mike Ryan who specialises in pandemics (ie: the name of this Ryan's label). Fundamentally, while it's not quite G11 material, the puffery is just too strong. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 6 September 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. Jujutacular (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seabury[edit]

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

Delete: An orphaned article about a minor housing estate, defined as merely a "residential area" in the infobox. No encyclopaedic value in the stub. No WP:RS to verify notability. The official Irish Placenames Database defines it as nothing more than a sráid (street). — O'Dea (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — O'Dea (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nominator, housing estates do not deserve their own articles on Wikipedia. Finnegas (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable place. Snappy (talk) 17:14, 30 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 Speedy deleted as hoax / vandalism. For the record, while many people consider it courteous to inform the article creator of deletion nominations, it is not obligatory (for example, I usually drop a note for a prod, but not for an AfD). Fram (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Undefined[edit]

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

Pure original research. Not a single source (the article itself concedes that there are none) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note: as of the time of my writing this, the original author of the article has NOT been notified of the deletion nom.

the original author was NOT courtesty-notified of the preceding prod either.

Lx 121 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the article's own assertion that it is completely unverifiable. WP:NFT. Reso lute 22:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not verifiable whatsoever. T C N7JM 00:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lx 121's action was an abuse of WP:PROD. The article makes a specific claim of unverifiability. Might qualify as a speedy deletion candidate, to be honest. Mackensen (talk) 03:40, 31 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. No prejudice for recreation at a later date. Jujutacular (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Suspect (2013 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, not yet even released, WP:TOOSOON Caffeyw (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete without prejudice for now as simply being TOO SOON. Allow back once it has its December 2013 release and gets suitable coverage. AND let's keep in mind for then that we will likely not find English-language coverage for this Korean film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Tokyogirl79 per CSD G3, "Blatant hoax." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Longirostres[edit]

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

Complete horseshit by a rampant vandal HCA (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant and obvious misinformation. "Joshua the 10-Year-Old Biologist"? --McGeddon (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Blatant hoax/misinformation. I'd have been tempted to go straight for a speedy before even bringing it here tbh, but no harm done.--Korruski^Talk 14:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete—Obvious hoax is obvious. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh My God. JUST FUCKING SPEEDY DELETE THIS ALREADY. I get a laugh out of hoaxs as much as the next guy, but HOAXES ARE NOT ALLOWED ON WIKIPEDIA!!!! 和DITOR E tails 22:49, 29 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. postdlf (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Sudan[edit]

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

The fact that this may be true does not make it an article for Wikipedia. As it stands it is pure original research and an essay. Fiddle Faddle 13:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of a bigger series of Category:Corruption in Africa and corruption by country (see the sidebar of the article). A quick Google search finds info such as this, this and this. And this states it's the fifth-most corrupt country on earth. Also I note that you sent it to AfD within two minutes of the article being created. Did you read WP:BEFORE and then do some searches within that 120 seconds? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not difficult to find sources to establish notability, and (though I know little about Sudanese politics) I can see how this could develop into a worthwhile article. I'd also note other similar articles that are long-standing and well-sourced: Corruption in India, Corruption in China, Corruption in Kenya and so on.--Korruski^Talk 14:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as clicking on the convenient Gbooks link immediately shows it's notable. Essay like? Original research? Well, be bold and improve it! - AfD is not cleanup.--cyclopia ^speak! 21:18, 29 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. postdlf (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino inventions and discoveries[edit]

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

There are a lot of items on here that seem to be very misplaced, misguided, and non-educational.

The first thing that hits you as off about this article is all of the "disputed" content of all the foreigners "stealing" inventions or discoveries from Filipinos who "really created them". If it is globally accepted as a fact that someone else is the credit for something, wikipedia is not the place to play conspiracy theory.

Secondly, it appears that about 90% of the persons and topics in this article have no citations or related wikipedia links. The links that do exist in this article, give credit to someone else by a different name that is not Filipino. Clearly demonstrating a lack in the quality and validity of this content.

In the intro it says a Filipino invention includes people "descended from the Philippines". One cannot be descended from a country.

Barong Tagalog. You cannot "invent" a shirt. Besides this, it is from Mexico.

Baybayin and Tagalog. You cannot invent a language or writing system. These develop over many years as a natural phenomenon.

Modular building was first developed by Sears, Roebuck and Company in 1895. Edgardo Vasquez was not on the payroll.

"Julian Banzon researched methods of producing alternative fuels."- Not the only person to do that. Also research is not an invention.

"Doctor Benjamin Cabrera has developed innovations in drug treatments against diseases caused by mosquitoes and agricultural soil."- Like what?

"Amador Muriel is a mathematician was known due to his significant works and contributions to theoretical physics. He has made new kinetic equation which is essential for discovering problems on a statistical method that is non-equilibrium."-Can't we really do better than this? The English is so bad it is barely intelligible.

Gregorio Y. Zara did not create the video phone. It was John Logie Baird. As stated in the link.

I'm sure Filipinos did not invent pottery, clothing, spears, swords, nor the computer chip.

Karaoke IS Japanese. Invented by Daisuke Inoue.

The yo-yo is from Greece.

Raymundo Favila did not "invent math" in 1979. Math has been around hundreds of years. It's unlikely that he discovered math for the first time and taught it to Filipinos. Are we to believe prior to 1979, Filipinos has no concept of numbers and equations? On top of that, even if was the first Filipino to learn how to count, he would have learned mathematics from abroad. That is not "discovering" mathematics.

You also cannot "discover" a "food technique". What does that even mean?

Diosdado Banatao created a computer chip that makes computers "a lot faster" and a "little bit faster" this sounds very un-scientific.

Games are not a "discovery" nor an "invention". Neither are sports.

I could go on. However, I'm too tired to do an exhaustive debunking at the present. It is clear this article is entirely, or almost entirely fictional. As there is virtually no real information in this article that is salvageable, I move the article be removed speedily. Cheers Presidentbalut (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've cut and pasted this from the daily AFD log, where it was mistakenly posted directly; I also added an AFD tag to the article, which was apparently not done. @Presidentbalut:, please take note and watchlist this particular page to follow the discussion. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, but prune. Even if this is reduced to an empty statement, "There are no Filipino inventions whose origin can be sourced to the standards, WP:V and WP:RS, of Wikipedia." We have "List of inventions" articles for many other countries, so excluding the Philippines would seem like no more than petty nationalism.

These categories and lists do have sourcing problems though and are targets for COI, spam and edit-warring (see EuropeFan (talk · contribs)); entries in the list must be sourced, but that's no reason to delete the list. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs a lot of pruning and editing: many of the entries are scientists and inventors, not inventions/discoveries. It should be rewritten to emphasise the actual invention or discovery, and anything which isn't an invention/discovery should be removed. The deletion proposal is full of tendentious claims, nitpicking, and nonsense, and lacks clear per-policy grounds for deletion: having some bad content is not grounds for deletion, and being prone to vandalism or argument isn't grounds for deletion.

Individual topics should be debated on the talk page not here but I'd suggest. Writing systems if novel are reasonable to include, but languages probably not except for conlangs. Food is a grey area, particularly things which are eaten elsewhere but are particularly associated with the Philippines. Scientific inventions and discoveries, innovations in business, social science, politics, etc, are fine. It's also reasonable to include inventions by people who lived abroad but considered themselves Filipino as long as this is noted. Controversial or disputed inventions can be included but the dispute should be mentioned. Minor modifications of foreign products shouldn't be mentioned. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up extensively per above - see WP:NOTCLEANUP. Ansh6 6 6 01:28, 31 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. Jujutacular (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family Life International (New Zealand)[edit]

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

Gets a bunch of WP:GOOGLEHITS, but these seem to be an enormous number of press releases, passing mentions (eg. in lists), unreliable sources, and coincidental juxtapositions of words. Does not have the significant coverage in reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, WP:ORG, etc. Additionally, the article has almost no citations (and none to reliable sources) and is full of promotional language. The IP user removing the PROD notice did not address these concerns, saying that the information was factual and that it was sourced to their website - which is exactly the problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources, no indication of notability, and I've never heard of them. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm an avid follower of NZ news and like Daveosaurus, I can't say that I've ever heard of them, which would indicate that notability hasn't been met. Schwede 66 22:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious failure of WP:ORG. Cavarrone 05:26, 6 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KC (Kevin Chilvers)[edit]

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

Despite the multiple references in this article I can find nothing that passes WP:RS. The gentleman seems to be very enterprising, but not inherently notable. When he becomes notable he may have an article, but today is not that time. Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete though numerous, the coverage does not rise to the level of significance required for a wikipedia subject. Dloh cierekim 18:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, it should be at Kevin Chilvers. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. We can confirm that this person exists, which is good as far as it goes, but does nothing to establish any sort of notability. WP:USUAL applies, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:15, 6 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curb mining[edit]

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

OR. Term is not supported by references. Article is purely one person coming up with a term and trying to give it credit on Wiki. The main article supporting the term "curb mining" is actually a blog on the NY Times, not an actual article. As the creation even says "this is an article about a new cultural phenomenon". Caffeyw (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Is the problem with the article (sofixit), the article title (deletion is not renaming) or with the topic (maybe deletion)?

The phenomenon clearly exists and is discussed in adequate sources. Living in a country with kerbs, not curbs, I'm obviously unfamiliar with this term. However the New York Times is happy to use this term. Nor does a source evaporate because it matches the regex /blog/. An NYT column, even when labelled with the hipster-friendly 'blog' is a long way from the My Cat Mittens' Facebook pages that our policy against blog sourcing is about. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems conceptually very confused to me. On the one hand is urban scavenging, covered in Garbage picking, on the other marketing by giving away free samples. On the latter, variations abound, and the idea of doing so with a large object such as furniture as a way of creating a Marketing buzz does not seem to me to be conceptually different from dressing somebody up in a silly costume to hand out free samples of food or drink. The product is different, so will the the method be, but I am not sure that this is the way to discuss how and why. As for that being covered by the term Curb mining, surely the point of the NYT source was that the use of the marketing method by one company had given some insight into the prevalence of scavenging (though I am not convinced, I think it was just a bit of journalistic copy prompted by a clever PR trick). It does not provide an RS for the expression being the name of the marketing technique. On the face of it this should be a redirect to Garbage picking. --AJHingston (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's distinct from dumpster diving, often legally distinct. In many jurisdictions, ownership of waste changes once it's placed into a container for collection. It's thus illegal (although rarely enforced) to skip dive. Curb mining (which has long been popular in Germany and much of Europe) gets round this because the items offered are not yet placed (in a legal sense) into the waste stream, thus their ownership hasn't yet been transferred. It's often legal to curb mine, but illegal to skip dive. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That raises very difficult issues though. If I leave something outside my property, but not on it, ownership is not automatically transferred or relinquished (think of cars and bikes). Only in certain circumstances, and dependent on local laws, will it be conveyed to somebody else in the absence of an express act or statement of conveyance. I might place a notice on it inviting anybody who wishes to take it - the act of doing so and obtaining a free collection as a result may be very attractive if I would otherwise have to pay or take it physically to an approved disposal site. That is a positive act on my part, though, and I do not understand how it can be described linguistically as curb (kerb) mining - in what way am I extracting from the curb except as a free and temporary use of public space (though the person taking advantage of it may be described as a miner)? I suggest, moreover, that there is a distinction to be drawn between those who walk the streets looking for anything they can steal or remove regardless of ownership, and those who look out for things clearly abandoned by their owners (and placing it for collection eg in a skip or otherwise set aside for disposal is a clear indication of this) and have no intention of committing an offence even if the item is still technically owned by somebody who presumably has no intention if asserting such rights. What it comes to is that Garbage picking is not necessarily illegal, is certainly not necessarily carried out with unlawful intent, and if Wikipedia wants to draw such a distinction it needs to do so in a different way. And it is a long way from marketing techniques. --AJHingston (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recall reading that happens in Japan, where bulky items are put out for disposal. The topic(s) should be retained for reuse and recycling per WP:PRESERVE, rather than being hauled off to the dump immediately. Warden (talk) 17:34, 29 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 13:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shooto[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA Sport. All ghits come back to the Shooto organization or Shooto regional websites. I can't seem to find any articles where Shooto is actually discussed as a sport itself. You'd expect at least a passing mention of matches happening, etc, but no luck. Also major COPYVIO for most sections. Caffeyw (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shooto (Japan) is considered a top tier organization under WP:MMANOT.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - This is why I try and steer away from sports related topics. In no way meets cover guidelines, but a consensus has developed to allow them. I wish there was one central list of all Sports Associations that meet guidelines, instead of having to hunt through many to try and figure out if there's a consensus to include a group. It still needs to be edited because there's whole sections of copied material in it. Caffeyw (talk) 13:05, 29 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Wingard[edit]

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

Very little about this lawyer outside of one localish news story more about the commissions. Not noteworthy enough for an article, especially for a BLP, as one local story about his work doesn't fulfill the need for multiple reliable sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Faiz Mohammed Ahmed Al Kandari I can't quite work out why the nom describes this as "localish" when the main content of the article is about the subject's difficulties in legally representing one of the Guantanamo detainees, and the sources given include CNN, Salon and a couple of Middle Eastern newspapers. Having said that, while there is enough for notability, the entire notable content would belong just as well in his client's article, so it might be better to have it merged there. PWilkinson (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' more than a local figure, adequate sourcing,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Megacivilization[edit]

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

Unsupported term. Only mention is by an author in a book where he makes a suggestion that there could be a "megacivilization" in the center of our galaxy. All of it is pure speculation by one author, term is not used by others. Caffeyw (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term is used in books but it doesn't seem to be a concept: everyone uses the word in a different way. Collating this into an article would require lots of synthesis and original research. Unless a sub-definition related to the content exists and is notable, this is a misleading entry.--cyclopia ^speak! 20:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyclopia - fails WP:N and WP:OR. Ansh6 6 6 02:16, 31 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 International Peace Bureau. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean MacBride Peace Prize[edit]

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

Non-notable award. Only mentions are PR when the organization announces the winner. Any other coverage is strictly because Pvt Manning was this years winner not because of the award itself. Caffeyw (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with International Peace Bureau, or keep. It doesn't attract big press coverage in the USA, but I found plenty of news stories from around the world about people being awarded the prize, and it's mentioned in many books. It may not quite meet the detailed coverage requirement for independent notability, but there are plenty of sources to verify the information, going back well before Manning was awarded the prize. It's awarded by a prestigious (Nobel-Prize-winning) and 122-year-old institution and named after another Nobel laureate, so it's not some random newcomer with no authority: it's reasonable to merge it even if it doesn't quite cross the bounds of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep per Colapeninsula. The nominator should familiarize himself with WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a reasonable outcome in such cases. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough newspaper coverage of winners. Prestigious award. So many awards receive no coverage, and this one in India where coverage is sparse to begin with (WP:INDAFD) giving the existing sources even more weight. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:15, 6 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of corruption scandals in Romania[edit]

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

This is a BLP nightmare. While some appear to be RSourced others appear to not have as great a sourcing. Caffeyw (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to List of political scandals in Romania, as articles on other countries' scandals are titled in this manner. Page seems reliably sourced enough to keep. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each entry is sourced from a mainstream Romanian press source.
If the problem is that there's just one source for each entry, then I can provide more of them, these cases were widely covered in the Romanian press.

If the problem is that you consider certain sources unreliable, please say which of them are the problem. I consider them RS.

Only the corruption scandals that were officially investigated by the Romanian judiciary (or a foreign equivalent) were included, not just allegations by other politicians or journalists, so I don't think this is a problem with BPL; I included only national and county-level office-holders or city mayors, so I did not include "lower rank" scandals (village mayors, city councilers, etc) as the people involved would have not been notable to warrant an article; most of these people involved (MPs, ministers, mayors) are notable and have articles on Romanian Wikipedia. Agent al rușilor (talk) 17:17, 29 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 speedy keep. Speedy-ish, anyway. Deletion rationale not a valid reason for deletion of an article of this type. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crevier[edit]

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

Listcruft of anyone they claim notable with the name Crevier, and any company using the name. Caffeyw (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a deletion rationale here. postdlf (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why in the world would we delete a perfectly sound surname page?Hoops gza (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a perfectly good disambiguation page, though it is focused toward the people listed. Some of the articles linked might be questionable, but that should be discussed for each individually. Unless this list somehow whittles down to about two items, there is no reason for deletion. Chris857 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. There is also a Fort Crevier (fr:Fort Crevier), a National Historic Site of Canada in Quebec. Chris857 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made the English article for Fort Crevier, further improving the need for the disambiguation page.Hoops gza (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could see this becoming a disambig page. My concern is the way it's written could make it look like Wiki is making a subjective opinion in saying that some people with the name are notable and others aren't (having nothing to do with if they're meet GNG for their own article). Caffeyw (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes it sound like you think it's finished. If there were missing notable names, why wouldn't you just add them? I'm still at a loss as to why you listed this for deletion. postdlf (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a weird reason to delete a page. It's not a list, it's basically a disambiguation page. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated because as it reads right now it's not a list of people with the last name who have Wiki pages. It clearly states Notable People with the last name. In this form it's nothing but OR/Opinion. GNG is a subjective measure to get an article, it in no way means the person actually is notable as notability is a personal opinion. In it's current form someone could view it as potentially libelous for not being included on the list, since it implies that by not being on the list they're not notable. I nominated before understanding how it could be changed into a disambiguation page resolving the libel concern. Caffeyw (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it reads "Notable people with the surname include," not "The only notable people with the surname are:" And since these people are notable, and they're currently the only people with articles who are surnamed "Crevier," it makes perfect sense. For instance, see Cortright. It's just people with the surname. It's not opinion at all. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable is still a pure opinion, Wiki can only have facts, just because someone is notable enough for a page on Wiki does not mean they're notable to the world. Notability for a Wiki page is purely opinion based not fact. The way it reads now is that the following are notable people, thus those not on the list are not notable. As stated above a disambig page would solve the issue, and make it clear we're not labeling who is/isn't notable. Caffeyw (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are currently the only people on Wikipedia with the name Crevier. If there are missing people who are notable, add them. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crevier, you are so far from a deletion rationale that is in any way based on policy, guidelines, or even common sense, that you're not even wrong. If it is a problem to include the word "notable", then we would just remove it, not delete the whole damn page. See WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP. "Notable" means nothing more here than "merits an article" per WP:N, which is a judgment we have to make as editors. That's how this site works. It is standard to limit lists to subjects that merit articles, per WP:LISTPURP. If there are additional names that have or should merit articles, ADD THEM. So please WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop repeating yourself, because you have no idea what you're talking about, and are truly coming up with some of the most bizarre "arguments" I've seen here. Spend more time reading and trying to understand policy and less time trying to tell people how you think it is. postdlf (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per invalid deletion rationale. Like the thousands of other such we have on Wikipedia, it's a suitable disambig page that leads readers to other articles. "Notability" of THOSE articles is a matter not under consideration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Appears to be hoax nomination. -AfadsBad (talk) 02:46, 3 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a Hero![edit]

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

Non-notable film. Released only for three months in Hong Kong. Caffeyw (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? The article says the film had a theatrical release (time in cinemas) of 2 weeks (27 February - 11 March) and grossed $11.5 million. That doesn't necessarily make it notable but I can't work out where the 3 months comes from. Stalwart111 09:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was meaning three weeks. Sorry Caffeyw (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, understood. All good! Stalwart111 09:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mine that while the article offers box-office information about an initial three-week run in Hong Kong, it is quite likely the film had wider and longer release. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is a little tricky to find due to the common name of the flick, but I was unable to find substantial coverage. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If sources are difficult to find for the time being, consider per WP:NFILM: "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." There's no doubt the film exists and has had commercial release.[7][8][9][10] The nomination seems deletionist to me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed no doubt that the film exists, but notability has yet to be shown. Has it been proven that this is a major part of the actors' career? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starring roles for Andy Lau and Maggie Cheung? It's not like these are bit-parts at the beginning of their careers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per WP:CSB. We have a 1992 Chinese language film that did have theatrical release, and an article written in English with an Anglification (Hua! ying xiong) of a Chinese language title. The issue really is we need input from Chinese Wikipedians able to research and bring forth the expected Chinese language or other Asian-language reviews and coverage acceptable under WP:NONENG. If Chinese language Wikipedian can convince that this film did not receive coverage and that it was not an important part of the careers of certain Chinese film stars, I would withdraw. I cannot in good conscience let an unfortunate systemic bias act as a deletion rationale. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a systemic bias? A film released for only two - three weeks regardless of it being in Hong Kong or the US would in my mind be very hard pressed to meet notability guidelines. According to your rational if it involves something outside the US we leave it on Wiki absent proof of non-notability, which is completely opposite of Wiki's standards. Caffeyw (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The systemic bias is that we cannot find English-language sources, but it is highly likely they exist in other languages. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What caused User:Caffeyw to assume/declare that a 1992 Chinese language film with a number of notable Chinese actors had only a two-week release.... ever? More to the point, "possible" short length of theatrical release has nothing to do with a film meeting inclusion criteria or not. I am unable to presume that a 1992 film which raised HK$11,534,659 in its "first" few weeks of release could not have received enough coverage in a city (of perhaps 5 million persons at that time) to meet WP:NF or WP:GNG, even if such coverage is non-English. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

To User:Caffeyw: With respects, WP:Systemic bias... in no way implies that an editor has any personal bias. However, it does let us know that we could be part of the problem if we do not grant it IS a problem. Do you read or write Cantonese or Mandarin? Have you been able to evaluate the many Chinese language news and book sources revealed by searches. Did you search for sources in those languages? I will await input from Wikipedians able to do just that. Until then, I will maintain that, even if not used, it appears this topic has enough coverage to meet our inclusion criteria... basic policy "Standards" are met... and the topic simply needs the attention of those editors with the linguistic skills to tackle the problem under WP:WIP, WP:PRESERVE, WP:DEADLINE.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you where meaning. I in no way took it to mean personal. However if converted to US dollars in todays value the film made a total of $2.5 million. Combine with the fact that it ran for a total of 2 - 3 weeks, and no articles are coming up I have to say non-notable. Also note Hong Kong was a British Overseas Territory then, and even today English is a primary language of many citizens, most including those of Chinese decent don't consider themselves Chinese. If this was mainland China I could understand your point on possibly missing something because of not being able to search Chinese. However even there, Wiki's GNG require RS material for an article to be included, just because there might be something in another language doesn't make the film ready for an article. In fact that would be violating WP:CRYSTAL. Caffeyw (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL has to do with speaking toward future events... not events of 21 years ago. And where did you verify any information that the film ran for only 2 weeks? Keep in mind that reporting two-week box office receipts rather than lifetime earnings, does NOT allow an inference that the film was pulled from theaters after two weeks or that it never had a commercial release on television. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Andy Lau is already a hero good enough! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:35, 30 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 speedy delete. A10, there's another AfD for Best Movies of Tollywood —SpacemanSpiff 10:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best Of Tollywood[edit]

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

Purely OR. Subjective opinion, nothing that can be Best of without purely being an opinion. Caffeyw (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly unsourced. Who the heck is the "chief officer of Tollywood"? Who are the voters? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've had to revert the page after the author reverted it to remove the AfD header. I've posted on his talkpage that if he does it again I'll report it to ANI. Caffeyw (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note there's an AfD for Best Movies of Tollywood. I've reported the user to ANI since it seem clear he doesn't want to play by the rules. Caffeyw (talk) 10:02, 29 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. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali and Nino – Literary Robbery![edit]

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

I have looked only at the article, and not on any search engines, but it seems to me that the book may not meet WP:GNG.

I know this is an academic book and that it is governed by the special criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Academic and technical books. But still, I suspect that having only four WorldCat hits may be a bad sign.

[Edit: This book was cited zero times according to Google Scholar. It has zero Google News Archive hits.]

Dear author(s): Please read WP:42 before creating any articles in the future. Also, if you do decide to create more articles even after having WP:42, then please use Wikipedia:Articles for creation every time.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's no need to also !vote delete in your own deletion nomination. Stalwart111 08:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - you might want to rethink you nomination here. You demand that authors use WP:AFC (which is not required) but openly admit to not having performed the checks at WP:BEFORE (which is required). You may well be right about notability but this nomination probably needs some work. Stalwart111 08:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. I have slightly improved my nomination. —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have. Nicely done. Stalwart111 03:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the book nor the author is notable. (I'd normaqlly suggest for an article like this merging with the article on the auhtoor, but I don't think that is sustainable either.) Only 4 holdings for an English language book published in 2009 is pretty much proof of non-notability in any subject whatsoever. This is essentially being used to publish a summary of very specialized research in WP, which is a general encyclopedia. We should have a rather high acceptance of specialization, because the millions of special topics is what make up an encyclopedia, but this is overdoing it. However, I disagree with general advice to use afc. The current reviewing standard at afc is so low that I recommend it only to those with so strong a COI that they should not write directly in mainspace. It's true that this article could well be viewed as an attempt at publicity for the author, and probably even the current standards at afc would have adequately dealt with it. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Does the above mean that AfC is too lenient and accepts too many COI articles? Or does it mean that AfC is too stringent and rejects articles even when it shouldn't have? —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be that both are an issue. We have articles about notable subjects being rejected at AFC because of minor stylistic concerns. We also have articles being accepted that go straight to AFD (or worse, qualify for speedy deletion). Neither is a good outcome. I've created about 150 articles and have never used AFC, nor would I recommend others use it, let alone insist as much. Stalwart111 03:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely fails notability. Just another attempt by the Azerbaijan International COI SPA editors to coopt the Wikipedia discussion about Ali and Nino. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 1 September 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. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar Injia[edit]

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

I've looked at the article. It seems to me that Ms. Injia doesn't meet WP:PROF. Unforgettableid (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. The other elements of the career do not seem to meet notability either,.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with these comments, but can we get a clearer statement of nomination than "doesn't meet WP:PROF"? a perfectly acceptable counter to that is "yes it does." -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a self-created promotional article and POV-pushing piece about one single work. Completely fails WP:GNG. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 1 September 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. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's intelligence quotient[edit]

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

There's no significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources, and the topic is therefore not notable. The article is a content fork of Nations and intelligence, and combines material from multiple primary sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

I prodded the article earlier, and while there was no opposition to deleting it, the admin who dealt with it thought that AfD should be used to delete it. ~~The same admin now changed the article into a redirect page to Nations and intelligence, but there's no reason to have a redirect page like this, either.~~--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current redirect will be confusing to readers and editors. I too am puzzled about why a redirect notice has appeared at Iran's intelligence quotient overnight. The main issue here, really, is that there do not appear to be reliable sources (and this has been discussed on the article talk page) for a stand-alone article on the IQ score level of Iran. If such sources were to be found for such an article, the situation would be different. As for the redirect target, Nations and intelligence, there could be a little back-and-forth among the editors about that title, but there are plainly quite a few sources on that issue, and that article has the potential to be very well sourced indeed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redirect and restored the content of the article so that people can more easily decide about deletion.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to a redirect for two reasons: one, the term is a slightly, if unlikely, search term (or some similar combination of words, which would still likely be found by search engine), so there's no harm in keeping it; two, it avoided the need for a deletion discussion, since there seemed to be agreement on the talk page that the article didn't need to exist. But having the discussion is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" it avoided the need for a deletion discussion, since there seemed to be agreement on the talk page that the article didn't need to exist "

I find that to be a worrying statement, especially from an administrator. There certainly is not "agreement on the talk page that the article didn't need to exist". Also, bypassing a deletion discussion by changing to a redirect is not an acceptable way to "delete" an article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N and I don't think the redirect is useful at all. Ansh6 6 6 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- What Ansh666 says. The article is also not comprehensible, and there is no way to research additional information to clear it up. When an article this bad appears, creating a redirect from it is not useful. The sooner it is fully removed from Wikipedia and search engines the better. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. The references describe subgroups of the Iranian population and do not establish notability of the topic. Indeed the purpose of the article seems be a refutation of Lynn & Vanhanen's conclusion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:30, 5 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romblon Triangle[edit]

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

Can't find reliable sources about this. Quite a bit of the sources seem to reflect this article. [11] shows a few sources before the article's creation, eg [12] and [13] but these don't seem to meet our criteria. Evidently the person who named this was an elected official and reporter in Romblon, Alden Alag- search for his name Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not reliable.--Charles (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:25, 31 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Aggeliki[edit]

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

Seems to basically be a hoax, non-notable, or some combination of the two. In 2012, was listed on IMDB as being in many movies scheduled for 2013, usually without verification from other sources. Most of those credits have since disappeared, except for a few that say "uncredited" (see Zoe Aggeliki's IMDB page). A couple of other film sites seem to have fallen for the same hoax in 2012, as well. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - per nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 29 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 deleted by User:RHaworth. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Network-Centric Solutions-2 (NETCENTS-2)[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Although there is some press on this, it is all about contract that this "process" or whatever it is, has awarded and not about the subject itself. The fact that it isn't really clear even what this is is another reason for deletion, although I cannot cite a policy for that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article's author hasn't provided sources which meet our requirements. (Dear author: Please see WP:42 for a summary of our requirements.) —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A G11 speedy was added at the same time I was nominating this. That would be a fair conclusion in my mind. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:25, 29 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Williams[edit]

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

it appears to only have tabloid information, and the subjest is not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Williams has appeared as a regular on the Danish version of The Real Housewives of... And had roles in several Hollywood films. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~i'll take you at your word, and withdraw this, but the article really doesn't state that at all.~~ -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 06:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it needs expansion. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well, upon further thought, I'm not gonna withdraw it. I want to see what other users have to say, especially as most of the sources are tabloid-esque... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
I'm not entirely convinced about the degree of alignment of "The Real Housewives" & "Danske Hollywoodfruer".
There is however no doubt about the fallacy in the assumption of both "The Real Housewives" and "Danske Hollywoodfruer" being equally popular or noteworthy.
In fact: "Danske Hollywoodfruer" was a reality show, of mediocre popularity & stature, and really only served for providing tabloid media a chance to spotwise fill-in otherwise blanks in the daily production (of their tabloid papers).
It's no surprise that Danish Wikipedia (da.wikipedia.org) has no entry on that show.
Claiming fame or notability for having been only part of something that isn't notable, doesn't make sense at all.
Furthermore: "Danske Hollywoodfruer" was (to the very best of my knowledge) never broadcast outside its natural language barrier. (Danish is only spoken in Denmark, by about 5 million people. Though Sweden & Norway is able to understand at least some Danish.)
So, in the scope of English Wikipedia: 1/4 (Simone Levin, being 1) of the 4 persons being labelled as a "Hollywoodfrue", and only being in the first season of the show, being a mediocre & not (domestically, Denmark) overly popular reality show, which was never broadcast to any English audience. ... (Well, since I actually once watched about 10 minutes of the show, then: Maybe that make me personally notable on English Wikipedia too. - But I'm not going to create an article on myself, since I don't have any promotional need for it.)

As to being part of Hollywood movies, then: Yes, that's true - but! All the roles she's been in, barely scrapes the category of stand-in or extras.
While people w. promotinal interest in Simone Levin (aka Simona Williams) has done their job here on wikipedia, adding her roles to the article's "Filmography"-section, then: Take a look at what the roles are, and you'll see role/character-names like "Feminist Leader #1", "Craps Table Girl #3", ...
If you then further move on to visit the offical websites of most of the 17 listed movies , then: It's not uncommon for her name not being in the cast-list at all.
Though, I did manage to find a clip (on YouTube) from a movie, where she (in her role/character) actually speaks (for about 2 minutes, i.e. a few lines for the role was in the moviescript).

Well, not all actors are destined for Academy Awards nomination (aka. Oscar nomination), but ... an actor or a wanna-be actor, thru past 13 years or more, closing in on her 50 years birthday, with zero shine in her acting carrier: That's not noteworthy.
Claimimg notability on Wikipedia for being an actor?!? : I can't find any independant recognised known named film-critique, who even hints or mention her performance in a movie review. (come to think of it, I don't even recall having seen any such film-critique ever mention her name or role).
Something20130828 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been withdrawn. that you are so sure that she is non notable but still you make such efforts to write about her and edit her article and you obviously has alot of knowledge about her films only that you for some reason seems to be having some sort of personal vendetta against Williams. Do you know her in real life or? --BabbaQ (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also new sources added today and article improved. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't know her in real life.

In fact: I had never ever heard about the woman until April.2013, where I accidently came accros the name in a complete unrelated context (it was a kind of SEO incident/example).

Q: Why did I choose to (or tried to) do somthing about the article(?) (back in April/May.2013)

A: Well, I had never really tried to edit anything much on Wikipedia (and had never ever had an account), so I simply picked that article as an exercise.

Q: Why/How do I have so much knownledge about this subject/her(?)

A: Because I did my homework! (chocking I know - contrasting the public reputation of Wikipedia as a place where half-assed idiots & ignorants will dive into matters without having knowledge, and then "form a concensus").

Well, unfortunately not surprising at all, but still exceptionally glaring - is to observe some people disputing the subject (Simone Levin), yet without them having the ability to seek out or judge the information sources for themselves. Yeah: Nearly all the relevant sources are written in Danish, and rooted in Denmark. A machine translation may provide resonable aid in reading, but! for the purpose of content generation, i.e. writing quality articles, then: Seeking out information, reliably passing judgement on such found, and proposed sources from other editors - requires knowledge on relevant language, culture, and laws. (knowledge about where to look for regional dark-web information also helps in investigations)

Something20130828 (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per BabbaQ. Something20130828 doesn't seem to realize that whether a subject has an article on their native Wikipedia is not relevant; it's whether it satisfies this Wiki's guidelines or not. Here, being a regular in the Danish "The Real Housewives" should be enough. That said, due to a lack of any Danish knowledge, I don't know which of those are RS, IMDB is obviously not grounds for notability, and Dread Central is unconvincing in its reliability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- About the sources: I can read the Scandinavian languages, and am reasonably familiar with BT (tabloid) (Danish), Ekstra Bladet (Danish) and Expressen (Swedish). They're lousy tabloid rags. Just reading about their attempts to corner Williams into admitting to being ten years older than she has claimed (such bullying interviews with the subject are the lovely sources for the DOB) makes my skin crawl. I wouldn't believe them if they told me the sun rises in the east. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm sorry Bishonen, but I'm going to stray off-topic here, because I can not help myself from smiling or laughing here. Take a good close look at Simone Levin, who's being subjected to "bullying interviews" from the "lousy tabloid rags". I think you're scolding the kettle for treating the pot as black. Something20130828 (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly weak Delete. The sources are unreliable, even apart from being distasteful, and I have trouble seeing anything notable in Williams' acting career. About the Danish "Real Housewives" show, I suppose your mileage may vary. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete per WP:ONEEVENT. This is a bio page which I feel is rather borderline. I do disagree with the initial delete !vote in that a biography on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the quality of that person's work but rather only whether or not the criteria for significant coverage of the individual in independent reliable sources has been met (per WP:GNG). The sources and the information I added to the article are reliable -- being broadcast by Belingske Tidende media group and the Ritzau news service. (Note: Tabloid format does not equate to "Tabloid journalism"). However, after searching for coverage, I found that all of the coverage occurred during a brief span of several months in 2010 and centered almost entirely around a single topic: the subject's age. I found no coverage prior to 2010 and none since then. Therefore, I suggest deleting as per single event. If the person generates news coverage in future years, than the page can be recreated. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a No Consensus AfD even the users !voting weak delete admits it is a borderline case. But in my opinion she has done more work then many other "actors" on this Wikipedia. I think unfortunatly this time cactus and bish has not proven the non notability that is needed for deletion. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:18, 6 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Tail[edit]

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

This is a collection of fictional details without any real world importance. TTN (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination rationale itself is invalid. That being said, this does not now, and does not appear to be able, meet the notability guidelines. Therefore deletion, or a merge into a list of characters from the series, is in order. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nominator was referring to WP:PLOT: Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary. It's pretty well accepted that our articles should contain real-world analysis of the subjects, even if they are fictional. Them From Space 17:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge/redirect: The article currently only gives plot details, with no real-world information. There's no real evidence of any notability. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the full history to the Manga wiki when this information is better suited. http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Twin_Tail Dream Focus 19:58, 1 September 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) 07:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem 2013 Tour[edit]

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

Actually, there is no tour yet, and these dates don't make a tour. I did a search and there are no reliable sources talking about a tour. So, taking these random dates where he performed live and naming them "tour" is original research. it also fails WP:HAMMER. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a tour, just a series of festival shows he played this summer. — Status (talk · contribs) 01:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above, not a significant lengthy tour, just a couple overseas shows and festivals under a blanket name. STATic message me! 02:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not such a big event to include in Wikipedia. SmackoVector (talk) 10:49, 29 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Edward Bauer[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. ambassadors are not inherently notable, I could not find any significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to be more commonly known as "Bill Bauer" and shows up in books about Canadian diplomacy. Warden (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide actual examples of indepth coverage, all i could find in gbooks is one line mentions. [14]. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage and extensive quotes in reliable sources, particularly when he was ambassador to Korea.[15][16][17][18][19]. This article[20] reports he "played a prominent part in Western efforts to achieve good human rights agreements [with the Soviet Bloc]." Pburka (talk) 00:55, 6 September 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.