Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 December	12 December >

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 redirect to MetroLyrics. I think the obvious solution of a redirect is clear enough without the need to relist DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Juristovski[edit]

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

I PRODed this article last year and it has recently been refunded. My concern then and still now is that the article fails WP:BIO as I cannot find any significant coverage about the person in multiple, reliable sources. The subject died recently, but this source was the only new one I could find. I think the best option is to leave a redirect to MetroLeap Media, the company he co-founded. SmartSE (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MetroLeap Media or delete. This is just a few trivial mentions spread throughout what looks like promotional articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MetroLyrics (MetroLeap Media is a redirect). All of the coverage is primarily about his company. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 16 December 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) 18:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trademob[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH, i.e., lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. Although there are many references, most of them only briefly mention the subject of this article. Most of the references seem to be sourced from press releases relating to (1) opening an overseas office or (2) completing a study on clicks. It is unclear how either of these make the company itself notable. It is worth reading the first AfD dicussion WP:Articles for deletion/Trademob. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Further was deleted WP:Articles for deletion/Trademob. Feel WP:G4 would be applicable as it was deleted in a deletion debate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Note: article was also moved by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 23:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of mobile phones with HD display[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion before, but was kept by the influence of a response which only factored in usefulness. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." (nor the "Compare smartphones" page on insert favourite technology site here)

This is merely a comparison of smartphones by screen resolution with otherwise poor sourcing (most of its entries do not have proper citations). Wikipedia is not a catalog or sales directory. This is henceforth, unnecessary. Categories, such as "Smartphones with 720p displays"/"Smartphones with 1080p" displays are a preferred manner in which to organize these.

Due to the large number of devices with such displays, this article is ultimately unmaintainable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with DRM and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of handhelds with Wi-Fi connectivity ViperSnake151 Talk 22:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These days that pretty much means every device on the market that's a smartphone. As the nominator states, Wikipedia is WP:NOT "reviews.cnet.com/smartphone-reviews/‎", which is what this article reads as. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG and failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:V. Even WP:ITSUSEFUL makes no sense here because no, it is not useful; the usefulness of this article has expired. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also adding the similar articles for other resolutions. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Only two and a half months after the last Afd attempt on this list, here we are again. I find the list interesting and useful, and deleting it does not improve the 'pedia. Jus da fax 06:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please remember that usefulness alone is not considered a valid argument in deletion discussions, and I specifically said that the last "keep" was a result of invalid arguments that invoked only usefulness. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are wrong. You need to re-read the link you provided to WP:ITSUSEFUL. You are greatly inflating what it says about saying just the two words "it's useful" being an insufficient argument. It most certainly does not state that usefulness is not a valid argument, in fact it says that it is a valid argument, if explained. See below and re-read the link. Makyen (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I said "usefulness alone". i.e. usefulness with no further elaborationViperSnake151 Talk 17:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:You said it in the nomination, which discounted the fact that it was explained in the previous AfD; explicitly discounting the fact that it was explained there to satisfaction of other editors. You then reiterated your argument above in response to Jusdafax who explicitly referenced the previous AfD where the usefulness argument was explained. By making that reference, Jusdafax effectively indicated agreement with the arguments in, and conclusions of, the previous AfD. As such, replying, as you did, with a reiteration of your inaccurate WP:ITSUSEFUL argument was, again, indicating that you felt a usefulness argument alone was not a valid argument to keep an article. Such belief is wrong. A usefulness argument is a valid argument, and even such an argument alone is sufficient. What WP:ITSUSEFUL says is that just saying "its useful" is not sufficient. Why it is useful must be explained. That is in bold at the link. The existence of this AfD and what you have stated in it indicates that you do not understand that. In fact, WP:SPLITLIST effectively states that a list should be created even for the sole purpose of being useful to another article if the information contained has grown to the extent that it is no longer appropriate to keep embedded in the article. Whether the FWVGA and WVGA articles have grown beyond that purpose is another discussion. Again, I suggest that you re-read WP:ITSUSEFUL. Makyen (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do agree with User:Jusdafax. Useful list and I don't see any acceptable reason. I can't understand why you guys like to delete anything useful! :D --Faramarz^♚♔♚ 18:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Important comment: There was a same discussion before. The result was keeping these lists. --Faramarz^♚♔♚ 18:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I can't understand why you guys like to delete anything useful!" We are building an encyclopedia, not a product comparison website. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: If you think this is NOT a list you can change the title to "Comparison of mobile phones with HD display". We have some comparison articles such as Comparison of Android devices and it is OK with WP laws. --Faramarz^♚♔♚ 15:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Faramarz. Please post your comments to the bottom of the page, not top. While we are at it, I'd doubt an experienced editor as ViperSnake151 would ever mistake a deletion discussion for a rename discussion. In fact, his nomination explicitly states conflict with actual fundamental policies. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I'll post my upcoming comments to the bottom of discussion pages. But about this subject I'm confused! If comparison is in contrast with WP policies why WP have some comparison articles such the example that I mentioned? --Faramarz^♚♔♚ 07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi. "Other stuff exists" is the kind of discussion that I absolutely hate. We do not have a policy against comparison or lists. But we do have WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO.

Now deletion isn't the only solution here. We keep them but remove items without an article or evidence of notability. As for the last two, there is also the option of turning them into categories. But again, the biggest problem here is that our subject of discussion is a passing trend. How much an article titled "List of mobile phones with black and white screens" have chance of not getting deleted? I'd say nothing. You'd have to accept that this article is doomed anyway. If not today, in a year or two.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me that the lists are appropriate ones from which to remove non-notable items. From the lists context, I would leave them in. It would depend on when we reach the change point between including all items to only including the notable ones (see WP:CSC). Makyen (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. WP:NOTDIR has made an exception for lists that catalog Wikipedia's contents. So, while you'd leave them be, I might delete those items. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nomination states that the lists should be deleted because the previous discussion only factored in usefulness and then links to WP:USEFUL. The attempt with this statement is to imply that policy states usefulness is not a reason to keep an article or list. The nominator's argument is fallacious. The link provided states that when making an argument about usefulness that saying only the two words "it's useful" is not sufficient. What is required is to state why it is useful, which the discussion in the previous AfD did do. WP:USEFUL explicitly states that "Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader.". In addition it states "An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context." The arguments in the previous AfD did put the usefulness in context, and 80% of the editors responding after that voted to keep. Thus, the primary argument for this AfD is based on the fallacy that usefulness is not a criteria for lists when, in fact, usefulness not only is a valid argument, but can be the particular focus of a list.

What I said on usefulness two months ago:

"Both lists are useful additions to the articles which reference them. They are referenced in articles that discuss mobile phone displays and/or display resolutions. While I do not know the history of List of mobile phones with HD display, the List of mobile phones with WVGA display was created because the primary article that references it, Graphics display resolution, had a list of such phones in its section on WVGA as examples of such displays. That embedded list became long as multiple editors wanted to add their favorite phone to the examples listed. Multiple attempts were made to keep the embedded list to a reasonable size, or eliminate it. Eventually, it was clear that neither method was going to work. As described in WP:SPLITLIST the list was split off into its own set index article. [The FWVGA list was created for the same reason. In retrospect, I would not actually call them set index articles, just lists.]
List of mobile phones with HD display is a high quality list that I find quite useful. I feel that it should be kept even if List of mobile phones with WVGA display is deleted.

At that time, I should have expanded on my comment about List of mobile phones with HD display. I did not because I felt its value was self-evident. As with many people, I am biased towards newer, more capable technology. I know that I have perused the List of mobile phones with HD display multiple times just for the information content.

The second thing the nomination states is that there is a problem "with otherwise poor sourcing (most of its entries do not have proper citations)". Other than an article has a fundamental lack of citations, a lower than desired number of citations is a reason to improve the article/list, not a reason to delete the list. ~~If the original nominator had a problem with the citations, then he/she could improve them.~~ For lists, entries in a list have a lower need for citations when the entry in the list is a link to a Wikipedia article about the item listed. Such links serve to effectively incorporate the citations in the linked article. There were a number of entries in all three lists that were not links to articles and that did not have references. All such entries in all three lists now have references. However, again, a relative lack of citations is not a criteria for deletion. It is an indicator that the list/article should be improved. In the future, if the nominator thinks that a lack of citations is a problem in an article requiring no specialized knowledge, then some time should be spent improving the article/list by finding citations. In this case, it did not take any special expertise to find references, just time and searching on Google. Deletion is not a valid alternative to spending the time to find easily obtainable references, particularly when there is no one challenging the contents of the article/list.

The nomination then quotes "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything". Explicitly, this is referring to WP:NOTDIR. That section lists six subsections. None of those subsections applies to these lists. The nomination explicitly mentions "catalog or sales directory". This implies that the original nominator was attempting to explicitly mention item "5. Sales catalogues." from WP:NOTDIR. All that subsection states is that prices should not be quoted in articles. No prices are quoted on any of the pages mentioned. Thus, it is not a sales catalog. Therefore, this argument is false.

The nomination then goes on to suggest that categorization should be used instead of having a list. If every single item that is a member of these lists had a separate Wikipedia page then having this done only as a category might be considered. However, there are a significant number of member items in these lists that do not have separate WP articles. This is not to say that they should not have such articles, merely that such articles do not exist at this time. Even if an item individually is not appropriate for a WP article of their its own that does not mean that they should not be included on a list (see WP:CSC, among others). Lists and categories are synergistic, not separate. It is ironic that three sentences after stating that one of the reasons these lists should not exist is poor references the nominator ten asserts that "Categories, ... are a preferred manner in which to organize these." Categories have no references. How the nominator can both complain that the lists "do not have proper citations" and then advocate no citations, I don't know. The positions an contradictory. ~~It should also be noted that while the nominator suggested categories 2 and a half months ago, he/she appears to have done nothing to actually create such categories. Such c~~Categories would be useful. They would be synergistic with, not replace, these lists.

Finally, the nomination asserts that due to the large number of devices the lists are unmaintainable. The nomination gives no evidence as to their maintainability, or not. It does not state that there are a significant number of devices that should be on the lists that are not, or that the lists include items that should not be on the lists. The longest list is the HD one with 106 items broken into two sub lists of 54/52 items. In reality, the lists do get maintained. As is normal in WP, if an editor sees something that is missing, or inaccurate, then it gets corrected. Those editors that have the lists on their watchlist check the additions and deletions as they happen. There is no indication that the lists are unmaintainable. Even if they were not maintainable, that is not a valid argument for deletion. The nomination then gives links to two examples. The examples are not valid comparisons. Both examples were of WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists, which was a valid reason not to have the lists. The lists we are discussing in this AfD are WP:DISCRIMINATE.

Outdated: Argument has been made that the WVGA and FWVGA lists are outdated. This was a primary statement in the last AfD and it has been mentioned here. Yes, WVGA and FWVGA phones are not being introduced as regularly at this point. Phones with HD displays are getting most of the press. That does not mean that new WVGA and FWVGA are not being introduced, or, more importantly, that such phones are not still being sold in significant numbers.

The List of mobile phones with FWVGA display increased by 32% over the last year (from 25 to 33).

The List of mobile phones with WVGA display increased by only 4 phones over the last year (from 85 to 89).

It is likely that the people who are claiming the subject of the lists are outdated are biased towards the higher resolutions that their phones have, or the phone they are interested in getting has.

Even if the lists were outdated the relevance of being outdated would need to be demonstrated. I think that User:DGG said it well in the previous AfD with: "Outdated is irrelevant to notability . WP is an encyclopedia, and keeps historical information. This was of key importance a few years ago, and we should keep the record."

There are no valid reasons to delete. The lists are useful in Wikipedia in and of themselves and/or as supplementary material for other articles. I vote keep.

Makyen (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Other Stuff Exists" when used as a positive argument, like here, really should be wordedThis is a standard and accepted type of article. We probably need an abbreviation for it, because it applies to many attempts to delete lists of notable things. Such lists are not indiscriminate, for they normally cover only those items which have articles in WP or qualify for them, which is as discriminating and selective as anything else in WP. As for outdated, the argument cited that I made previously applies word for word. WP is not a consumer guide to current products. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. No more questions. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Repeatedly renominating articles because you don't like them is disruptive and bad for the encyclopedia. It has only been 2 1/2 months since this article was last nominated and Kept.Martin451 16:33, 17 December 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) 18:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Maverick (Ivory Turner)[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced biography with a section that relates the topic to several secret societies. Not sure if it's a hoax. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion should also probably include the duplicate page below. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this is unsourced, and google searches don't appear to turn up anything relevant. (There are two previous Samuel Mavericks in early American history that we have articles on, but they have very clearly different birth/death dates). Also, the bit about the illuminati does trip my hoax sensors. (Strong claims requiring strong evidence and all that). I would add that if this closes in delete, the article's creator has done a bit of collateral editing that will need to be reverted or removed. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 01:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a hoax. Samuel Maverick was a victim of the Boston Massacre. An independent Google search confirms that. I don't know if there's enough to support a stand-alone article. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, a Samuel Maverick was killed in the Boston Massacre; but aside from that single fact, this article appears to be utter balderdash. (Even the profession to which Maverick was apprenticed is given variously in different sources, so the disambiguator in this article's title would make the title inappropriate for an actual article on the man.) I see that Bfigura has prodded another article created by the same account, Turners of Ivory, which seems to be part of the fantasy. Whether or not Maverick merits an article, this one needs to be dynamited. Deor (talk) 09:53, 13 December 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. Mike V • Talk 02:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oshkosh East High School[edit]

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

Oshkosh East High School no longer is in operation.[1] ObiWanKenobi11 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 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 December 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "No longer in operation" is not grounds for deletion, per WP:NTEMP. If the school was sufficiently notable to have an article when it existed, its closing wouldn't change that. The stronger argument for deletion would be that this was a small alternative school and thus perhaps not entitled to the usual presumptions applicable to public high schools. The results of the "News" link above do show some coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A small school that fails to meet notability guidelines with as far as I can see text, and I agree with Arxilosos above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thank you for clarifying, Arxiloxos. Yes, this was a small charter school which was cut due to the Oshkosh Area School District's financial issues a couple of years ago. The school wasn't notable enough for an article in the first place, looking at it. --ObiWanKenobi11 (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the future, as the nominator we automatically assume you want this article deleted, so there is no need to make a bolded "Delete" in front of your statements. Editors should only make a bolded "delete" or "keep" once in a deletion discussion. This makes consensus judging a lot easier, and if editors make multiple 'delete's it makes the consensus appear differently than it actually is. Thanks! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Notwithstanding the Cyberbot notice above, this AfD may not have been properly opened. There's currently no notice of this AfD on the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oshkosh Area School District or keep. Although this was a small school and apparently didn't last very long, a click of the "News" link above shows that it had substantial coverage during its existence. Most of those sources are paywalled but here is a substantial article about the school: Adam Rodewald, "East High School gives students a second chance at success", Oshkosh Northwestern, April 27, 2010. Deletion is not appropriate. At a minimum, information about this former school should be added to the school district article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - alternative high schools are always of interest and likely to be able to be brought into compliance with WP:ORG but needs a local search for sources. I see no benefit to the Project by deletion and WP:BEFORE requires we consider alternatives. By keeping the page it will enable it to be developed , the way that we expand the encyclopaedia, whereas deletion just gives up on it. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We routinely preserve articles about small defunct high schools in India; I see no reason why this should be any different. Per The Whispering Wind, high schools are very significant in their respective communities, and can almost always be brought up to meet WP:ORG. In fact, this school isn't really that old. It was established in 2004 and closed sometime in the past 3 years. I'm confident that some fairly recent sources can also be found to write an informative article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:15, 6 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was a public high school, so keep per the consensus of the editing community that legitimate public high schools are notable. So far as GNG is concerned, as references the article has three newspaper articles as references, though they are behind paywall. Notability does not expire when an organization goes out of business or merges. Edison (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have taken to improving the article and adding content/references, as it seems the page will be kept. --ObiWanKenobi11 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment - I realize that this is a slightly bureaucratic move, but the nominator didn't put a deletion tag on the page when he or she nominated. I've added the tag and relisted this discussion to keep it open longer, in case editors who don't know about the discussion yet frequently monitor in the article want to participate in it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent for high schools as documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS. The fact that it has closed does not remove its notablity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fact that it is closed is not relevant. New York High School has been closed for 182 years.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Invictus (Mythos)[edit]

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

The Mythos (card game) is a Cthulhu mythos card game. There is no mention of a Mythos: World of Wonder card game on the Chaosium page. Worlds of Wonder (game) is a regular pen and paper RPG, not a Collectible Card Game. Creator of page was active for only a month in 2010. Creation of this page was their first edit. I'm thinking it may have been more of a test, something that should have been in sandbox… VikÞor | Talk 21:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this seems to the 3rd time it's been nominated, according to User talk:Mythos101. The previous 2 times were a Speedy Deletion and PROD. I don't know enough to find those discussions… --VikÞor | Talk 22:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Speedy deletions and prods don't get discussed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 December 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. Mike V • Talk 01:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm von Schulte[edit]

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

Didn't find any sources. Reliable sources needed to verify the relevance of this entry. genium ⟨✉⟩ 21:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. genium ⟨✉⟩ 21:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find nothing. Humbug ? Enrevseluj (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether he was real or not, he left no footprints, no significant accomplishments. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything about him in Google, Google Books, also tried Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. No awards, accomplishments, publications, mentions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are some fleeting mentions in several books, but I don't see, at first glance, anything significant. Willing to be persuanded otherwise; if so, contact me on my talk page. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a search, I can't find any significant coverage. I attempted a couple of different spellings in case that was the issue, but still nothing. I'm a bit disappointed, I came over because I thought I'd get to rescue a historical biography, which are my favourite. -ManicSpider (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eduflix[edit]

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

Finishing nomination for User:Ashok2102, who states "Company seems to have shut down. Page should be considered for deletion." While this isn't true per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, I'm having a hard time finding sources that aren't (like the ones in the article right now) promotional in nature. Ansh6 6 6 21:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no coverage in reliable sources about this company. In fact, coverage is so lacking that I cannot even confirm the nominator's assertion that it is out of business although it is likely true. It was a startup under some sort of tech incubator only 1 year ago. It's web site will not load for me. One of it's founders now works at Flipkart. None of these represent reliable sources to confirm the company is finished. But regardless, the point is there simply is no reliable sources for anything about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 16 December 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) 18:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kericho gold[edit]

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

Fails WP: GNG. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - brands are never automatically notable, and this doesn't even allege notability. Spam. See also Nigerian scam. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DiscountVouchers.co.uk[edit]

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

Promotional article for borderline notable firm. It may look like there are good references, but they are about the industry as a whole--and the impressive financial figure in the text is also about the industry as a whole, not this particular company. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article for a non-notable company. I know it doesn't really count for anything, but there are less than 100 hits on Google. It says 600K, but if you click on page ten, it will narrow the results down to 75. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I would suggest merger to an article about the discount voucher trade in the UK, but I don't see a suitable target. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 20 December 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) 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Anbudurai[edit]

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

An autobiography/CV which fails WP:ARTIST with only one reference which mentions him in passing. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page that does not have any sources that show subject meets WP:ARTIST. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the author and main contributor is a wp:SPA whose username happens to match the name of the person in the page. Looks like a duck to me No serious references and google gets me approximately nothing useful (including a couple of pages that show a distinct lack of notability where you would expect to see some - such as a blank list of art awards. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry[edit]

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

Article was PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Tagged for notability for 1.5 years. Although its website lists an impressive number of indexing databases, it clearly says: "We want Tamara Journal indexed and abstracted in the following services". Indeed, there is no evidence that the journal is actually indexed in any selective databases. There are no third party sources either. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." DePRODded by SPA editor with edit summary: "DOAJ added". DOAJ is not a selective database and, indeed, mention of it is usually removed from articles. EBSCO databases are not selective either. The other reference in the article ("Academic Journal Quality Guide") comes from the "Association of Business Schools" and does indeed list this journal, but it seems to list almost any journal in this field and is obviously not a selective listing (and on top of that, Tamara gets pretty low ratings on this list). Therefore, PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although WP:NJournals is an essay it does reiterate that "articles on academic journals are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice" which holds as one of the pillars of Wikipedia. This Journal does not shine as something that is notable. It is not of unusual quality or having a lasting impression. Other then "it exists" there is no other WP:RS for passing WP:N - Pmedema (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion - As a person with a COI I just want to point out that ABS list is by no means listing "any journal in this field" - it only lists journals notable according to ABS. I can name a good number of relatively recognized journals not listed there. The point about EBSCO not being selective is also not entirely true (although probably truer, since ABS is a ranking of notable journals, while EBSCO is a commercial database). EBSCO definitely is selective and it is not entirely easy to get any journal there, since they want to include only those of academic journals that can increase, rather than decrease the value of EBSCO subscription. Pundit|utter 22:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not consider Ebsco sufficiently selective to use as a criterion. They will include essentially any regularly published journal that they can, because one of their major selling points is the number of titles included--nobody uses it because of quality, because too many of the quality sources in it have time restrictions. I do consider the ABS list as a relevant factor--but not just mere inclusion in the list. Of the 5 possible classifications in that list, 1, 2 , 3, 4, 4*, this journal is rated in category 1, the very lowest. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 20 December 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. Also salted to prevent recreation because both AfDs have been unanimous delete results. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Carboni[edit]

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

I sew no evidence of notability, in the material here. I am not sure any of the sources are reliable sources for showing notability, but I admit I am not familiar with the field. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Links are invalid, not enough sources, significance is questionable, ridiculously messy, I can't see any way to improve the page. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mattson Technology Inc[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this promotional article, no really substantial references for anything significant. (Most of the content is devoted to listing the various executives three times over) DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find links in reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 12 December 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Hunter[edit]

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

This man fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He has many roles, but all are minor and of little significance. Beerest 2 talk 15:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On the contrary, Hunter had starring roles in television and film, as documented in citations. His career was also notable enough to earn a December 9th obituary/news story in Variety (magazine), (Actor Ronald Lee Hunter Dies at 70) a major industry trade magazine. Scanlan (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The guy's first major supporting role was The Lazarus Syndrome. He appeared in many films and television, but if that doesn't meet WP:GNG, perhaps WP:V#Notability does the trick. Also, his notability is not "temporary". George Ho (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person has over 45 acting credits that alone makes him notable this isn't based on how big his roles were but the fact that he was an actor and had a career as long as their is enough sources about him he is considered notable. Dman41689 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 December 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, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Stembridge, Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable sportscaster, deleted at AFD in 2008. He is no more notable now than he was in 2008, his only claim to notability is a single year as broadcaster with the Minnesota Vikings in 2001. Hairhorn (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything that makes him more notable than he was at the first AFD discussion or that makes him notable at all.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 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. Redirected by nominator per comment by 93.107.25.31 (talk · contribs). Withdrawl of AFD assumed. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles reunions[edit]

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

Since March, this page has been tagged to be merged with the far more comprehensive and orderly Collaborations between ex-Beatles. I've now merged everything that wasn't covered in the latter, so I am nominating this article for deletion. The Wookieepedian (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirecting is standard for merged articles, this article has a complex history, with multiple authors, so the history needs to be retained for attribution. Per WP:MERGE: "Merging—regardless of the amount of information kept—should always leave a redirect (or, in some cases, a disambiguation page) in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the source page. Superfluous redirects do not harm anything, and they can be helpful in finding articles, e.g. from alternative names." 93.107.25.31 (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok. Thanks! The Wookieepedian (talk) 14:32, 11 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filianism[edit]

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

No sources in article showing meets WP:ORG and I can't find any. Sources are either the group or forums, etc. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it again lacks evidence it meets our criteria for inclusion.:

delete both I also see no sign of any external notice of this new religion (the website that seems to be the only true source only dates back to 2007 acto Internet Archive). No book hits or anything else that suggests anyone even believes this, much less that anyone else noticed it. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Filianic Faith is a small, minority Faith that began in the 1970's at Oxford, England. We have only been online for about four or five years. We do have resources and three of the groups have a validly ordained clergy. Though we are fairly new, we are a growing movement. If we do not meet your criteria, we apologize. Rev. Pamela Lanides, the Order of the House of Kyria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.83.114 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The basic issue here is the lack of outside recognition— not of legitimacy, but that the movement exists and is described by outside sources. If the only real citable source is the religion's website, then it's impossible to write an article which meets minimal standards of objectivity; nor are our most minimal standards of notability met. If you can supply such sources then the article might be retained, but I must add that for instance local news stories saying that the group purchased property or held a festival would not be considered sufficiently strong. I would also like to thank you in advance for being understanding about these matters, it being a welcome change from the usual demands for inclusion. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, religions are by their very nature highly subjective. Does that mean Christian theologians cannot write about Christianity in Wikipedia? 184.76.8.41 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His is an irrelevant question. We do not have to rely upon Christian sources to verify the existence of Christianity. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, delete, delete, delete, delete There seems to be no incorporated church or religious organization associated with this anywhere, and aside from being a pure internet phenomenon there is no legitimate church/congregation/place of worship. Although Wikipedia isn't the Internal Revenue Service, it helps to use the IRS test here to measure the legitimacy of "Filianism." Do people exclusively identify as "Filyani" and practice the said religion in exclusion of others? Does a church of "Filianism" regularly meet for worship at a publicized location, open to public? If so I see no evidence of either criterion. Another relevant metric is the "sincerity test" used by the United States Bureau of Prisons. I looked through the linked websites, I simply fail to see them meet any level of sincerity. In fact they are such mish-mash of Catholicism, Neo-Paganism, Russian Orthodoxy, and Hinduism, they could as well be Universal Life Church or Unitarian Universalists (and I won't be surprised if the majority of "Filyani" are in fact members of UUA or hold "ordination" from ULC). 184.76.8.41 (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we identify (strongly) as being either Filianic or Deanic and we home-church. We are hoping to have our first on the ground parish by the spring. I had planned on doing so during the past year, but cancer prevented me. However, the House of Kyria is a religious ORDER and in being a religious ORDER, there is no need for formal incorporation at this time. Also important to note: our clergy are validly ordained PRIESTS not ministers. We meet the requirements for a recognized valid religion. We have a liturgy (not published on the internet), a creed, scriptures, a catechism, our own prayers, sacraments and so forth. We strongly support home worship or 'home-church' as we are spread across the country and in some cases, England and so having a home altar is most practical at this point in time. The IRS addresses the issue of sincerity here:http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicc80.pdf (scroll down). Btw, Wicca is a validly recognized religion and yet, there is no church building where worshipers meet. As far as being a 'mish-mash' is concerned, just about every religion out there, contains elements of religions which preceded them and that includes Christianity and most certainly, Wicca. We have nothing to do with Russian Orthodoxy or Neo-Paganism nor are we Catholic. Our Mythos actually precedes Christianity, but we use what we refer to as 'living stream images and devotions'. We are validly ordained through the Independent Bishop's Movement as priests(we are not ULC ministers) although Filianism is not a Christian religion. . There are other Divine Mother God movements both within Christianity and Judaism (Goddess Christianity, Goddess Judaism, Gnostic Christianity) and in the past, the little known Collyridians, but this is neither the place nor the time for such explanations. All of this is besides the point, however. The issue here is not whether we are a valid religion, but the issue is one of notability. Inflammatory remarks against our Faith are certainly not necessary. The person who took it upon himself to write our wiki article is actually not a member of our religion, but we were grateful for his efforts. Perhaps, it is simply too early in our movement for a wiki page at this time. Thank you for your time and in considering us. Our Church Council will respectfully accept your decision. Rev. Pamela Lanides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.83.114 (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I am a member, and I believe it to the exclusion of all other religions. The Divine Mother is the only form of deity that I can conceive. I center my life round devotions to Her. David Kay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.252.246 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Jones (orientalist)[edit]

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

BLP which may have been written by the person who is the subject (weasel) and a lack of sources Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could the nom perhaps expand on the reasons to delete? There are not many sources in the article, but are there none to be found either? Being an autobio is no reason for deletion, only for removal of possible POV (and it is not even certain that it is an autobio, Russkitten can be his daughter or girlfriend... Although I must admit to neither being the daughter nor the girlfriend of Randy myself... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noted scholar of Indonesia. Seems to me a pass of WP:Prof. Founding editor of now established and respected academic journal: Indonesia and the Malay World. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sure, it's Puffery, but "Afd is not for cleanup." Did you try other searches, such as this? I'll add a few sources; he very easily passes WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 13 December 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 Super-Duper Keep. Note below. WP:Non-admin closure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bappi Lahiri[edit]

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

It has very less reliable citations and the content is also not appropriate. Param Mudgal (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. Very notable music Director in Hindi Film industry.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artical Passes WP:MUSICBIO and I have heard of him on the internet. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – Nominating this article for deletion must be a joke! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note Its waste of time of editors to let them come here and opine for keep. Hence closing it. The nominator seems to be quite new to Wikipedia (based on edit counts and choice of AfD article). Request them to take it step by step before hopping and creating nuisance for others. I can be contacted on my talk page if you need help. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 20:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of false friends[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A similar, but not identical, article under this title was deleted back in 2007. There are several problems with the article. One is its scope. With 6,000 languages on the planet, there are a huge number of possible false friends among them. Even narrowing this down to English versus other languages would produce a large and excessive article which would violate WP:NOT. A further problem is that the idea of which words are false friends often comes down to point of view. Is it really likely that in the right context an English speaker encountering a Spanish text wouldn't know that web refers to the internet rather than something made by a spider? The article itself doesn't cite any sources, leaving it a potential minefield for original research. Sources themselves usually don't agree on which words are false friends. That leaves us ultimately with an incomplete POV list, which due to its nature, can never be expanded into a suitable article. Valenciano (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikt:Appendix:Spanish false cognates and false friends with English (and potentially wikt:Appendix:German false cognates and false friends with English, wikt:Appendix:Esperanto false cognates and false friends with English, wikt:Appendix:Norwegian false cognates and false friends with English, , wikt:Appendix:Swedish false cognates and false friends with English or similar, subject to Wiktionary's policies/guidelines - is anyone here fluent with the policies/guidelines there?), per WP:LISTN. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. It looks to be appropriating single sources' work in creating the lists, which is too close to copyvio to be comfortable.

There are some refs. For instance here is the ref given for the entire French section. But, the French section looks to include all the entries listed there. I'm pretty sure that that's a copyright violation, and even it technicaly not its piggybacking on someone else's work too much for my taste. It's a tough question because if the editor had just taken some of the entries, that'd be just his opinion (original research if you will). We have to walk the line between copyright vio and OR, and articles like this are hard to do right.

Lack of references is not as big a problem for this particular article. The point of refs is so that the reader can check our statements. For word definitions, that's fairly easy provided you have the right dictionary. When the article states that the Hungarian word "novella" means "short story", a person can look that up even if we don't provide a reference. That an English speaker might take "novella" to mean "novel" is sort of common sense; any ref would probably just be anecdotal anyway.

That fact that's incomplete doesn't bother me. In fact it's too long. Too long to manage, and many of the entries don't belong IMO for various reasons I won't go into. Some of it's not in English, for instance the note under "Billion" in the Hungarian section says "amerikai és modern brit angol", which leads me to believe that that was just copied from some source.

Somebody put a fair amount of work into this, even it was just reformatting existing material. It's not without value, although I'd prefer a different format and a much shorter article containing just those words that have been noted in more than one source, rather than just copied lists from a single source. You hate to throw this work away. But, for articles such as Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time we don't provide the list, because that would be misappropriation of Rolling Stone's intellectual work in making the list. Same deal here. Too close to a copyvio to even transwiki, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any specifically identified copyright violations can be removed, e.g. phrases rather than simply one or two words which convey meaning. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it' not that kind of copyvio. The list itself is the copyvio.

Take an article like Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. The names of the songs aren't copywritable, or they are they're fair use, which is why can have an article such as List of songs by Katy Perry which lists song titles. We can do that because the Perry article is a purely mechanical list that requires no significant intellectual work, just a matter of looking up which songs she's recorded. But for the Rolling Stone article, some people at Rolling Stone had to do real intellectual work to come up with that list and decide what makes a "great song" and so forth. So our article just describes the Rolling Stone article (and massages the data on the in certain ways, which is our own work) and doesn't include the actual list. It'd be stealing their work, and copyright forbids that.

Same deal here, at least for the French section (and probably some or all of the others). The words themselves are not copyrighted of course, but the list itself is. Herostratus (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, shouldn't it have been tagged under CSD#G12? (Maybe not so simple now it's been expanded.) -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 20 December 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) 19:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACM Manifold[edit]

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

Contested prod. A single component sold by a company that doesn't have an article itself. There are no independent sources in the article and I can find none that indicate this component is in anyway notable. QuiteUnusualPublic (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article shows no proof of notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Manifold. Herostratus (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to show that this component is notable enough to have its own page, and there don't seem to be any sources aside from the manufacturer's own product page. Novusuna ^talk 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bidadari, Singapore[edit]

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

Not WP:NOTABLE (yet). Seems to just be a proposed development. Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete " first residents in 2018" . Let's try again then. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 20 December 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 Deep Foods. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tandoor Chef[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm completing the nomination for User:DGG. I've nominated it for speedy deletion as a promotional page, but also a near carbon copy of the version that was deleted in the prior AfD. I wanted to finish this nomination in the slim chance that it is declined, as I also believe that the product/corporation fails notability guidelines. Other than brief mentions, there just isn't anything to show that this company/product is notable enough to merit an entry. I'm honestly not sure why it made it through AfC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my argument above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent company Deep Foods. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging that ain't already on the parent company page, but the parent company is seemingly notable, so outright deletion seems inappropriate. Wily D 10:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree a redirect would handle it, if the original article history were first deleted, so as not to keep the promotional material around. DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with a redirect, although I'd lobby for a deletion of the history since I'm somewhat concerned that the original editor would return to un-redirect the article if the history remained. That they attempted to have this re-added in October, about two to three months after the previous deletion, shows that they would have a somewhat high chance of returning to re-create the article in some form or fashion. There's no way to really stop them since a complete salting would be overkill at this point, but deleting the history would somewhat discourage re-creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm skeptical that deletion the history would be significant there, and at least two of the sources from this article aren't used in the Deep Foods article, so keeping them handy for anyone who wants to improve it seems sensible (though one's behind a subscription wall, so I can't see it). Wily D 10:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Deep Foods There is not enough here to justify a standalone article. The parent article for Deep Foods would benefit from more detail, and merging the content of this article into the parent -- with the elimination of promotional tone and puffery -- would improve the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Deep Foods. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JOptimizer[edit]

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

I'm finding few sources for this program aside from downloads and comments on downloads. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete similarly googling the name I find nothing looking like in-depth coverage, nothing like a reliable source, just odd mentions in blogs and discussion forums, descriptions on download sites, brief mentions of use alongside other software.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:12, 14 December 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. By Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) as (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avaplex[edit]

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

Article about a company whose claims to notability in the "Awards" section appear only in Wikipedia and nowhere else. There is no such thing as the "Newsweek 100 Best Web design company in Canada" or the "Business Development Magazine Toronto 10 Excellence Web Site Designer". Subject fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hilley[edit]

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

Single-market local radio personality with no properly sourced indication of notability to a national or international readership. Also probable WP:COI, as the article was created by User:Morningwakeupguy (go ahead, just you guess what daypart Hilley happens to host.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete the article as it doesn't meet GNG (by a long shot), not to mention the possible COI concerns. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence of notability; fails WP:BIO/--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:27, 19 December 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. The article was deleted by admin BDD (talk · contribs), who did not close this discussion. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Esposito (ice hockey, born 1970)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails of all criteria of WP:NHOCKEY; played just a handful of games outside the low minors. Such sources as are in the article are primary and don't discuss the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. Reliable sources which both satisfy the GNG and don't run afoul of WP:GEOSCOPE or WP:ROUTINE -- especially when obscured by a rather more famous hockey player of the same name -- aren't forthcoming. Very little improvement done over four years. Article was prodded, but prod was removed by the article creator ~~without comment~~. Ravenswing 05:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, the reasons for PROD removal are found on the talk page saying: “Player has played over 100 games in the minors and also coached an additional 100 games in the Federal League”. Dolovis (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Reply: Ah, fair enough. Of course, playing 100+ games (or coaching in) in bottom rung semi-pro leagues forms no part of notability criteria. Ravenswing 00:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing and coaching minor league hockey is not enough to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:NHOCKEY for having played 100+ games in fully professional minor leagues, and for having coached another 100+ games in the professional minor leagues. The subject also passes GNG, with significant and independent sources to be found including [2] [3][4][5][6] despite the fact that google searches are obscured by his more famous namesake. Dolovis (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Each and every one of those sources come from the local small city paper's website, which by definition would not satisfy the GNG, even if they didn't violate WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE, which they do. Furthermore, as you well know, the NHOCKEY criterion governing playing or coaching 100+ games apply solely to fully professional leagues, such as the AHL or ECHL ... not the bottom rung semi-pro loops in which Esposito had his brief playing career and in which he coaches. If you disagree with the scope of NHOCKEY's criteria, the proper response is to seek consensus for your POV on WP:NSPORTS' talk page. As it happens, you've sought to do so several times, and failed to do so. It's high time you accepted consensus, lacking any shift in it to your own POV. Ravenswing 07:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He didn't play (or coach) 100+ games in one of the upper tier minor leagues as is required. The links Dolovis points to fail WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE as mentioned by Ravenswing. In doing my own search I can't find any references which allow him to pass WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A handful of appearances in semi-pro leagues does not meet the SNG, and routine local coverage doesn't cut it. Reso lute 19:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Patken4 (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A routine hockey player. Playing in the minor leagues is not notable. Unless if he plays in the NHL, which is the majors, he will not be notable here. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Hwy43 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classmint[edit]

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

Having just researched this program, it seems much too soon to have an article about this program. It has just launched, and doesn't seem to have had much impact. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have saw that this program was founded this year and does not appear to be notable yet. Snowager (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely zero notability. Safiel (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian van Deventer[edit]

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

The league they play in is a semi-professional league. Plus, I find few sources when searching for the guy's name, and nothing at all without including the word rugby in the search. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RLN Mattlore (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:50, 11 December 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) 19:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riel (band)[edit]

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

Borderline G11 article on an Argentinian musical duo that was quickly de-prodded by article creator. I can find no sources that make the article meet WP:MUSICBIO. I include in this discussion two articles on musical recordings released by the duo: EP de Zombies, and Riel LP, none of which meet WP:NALBUMS. Sam Sailor ^Sing 04:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 04:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any sources to support notability and it appears that the Argentine Rolling Stone entry is not by a professional writer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There could also be a COI issue, since it was started by LosRiel. I might even have put a CSD G11 on the article, if I would have been the one first finding it. ₪Stormmeteo ^Message 21:44, 11 December 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 Current article identified as very poor, sources may be available but subject identifies BLP issues and requests deletion so given that the existing article lacks proper sources and nobody's rewritten from the available non-English sources, for now we are better off erring on the side of caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 December 2013

Genecia Luo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Genecia Luo (2nd nomination)

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

This page reads like a promotional webpage for the subject Genecia Luo Gluonman (talk) 15:48, 4 December 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 December 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that article has many problems. Most of the sourcing is junk and much of the content should be deleted. I found a good source, a chapter-length biography in the book The Audacity to Dream. It may take someone with access to Singapore (Chinese-language) sources to find more. -- GreenC 21:29, 8 December 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) 03:53, 11 December 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. Mkdw ^talk 06:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2009 French riots[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEWSEVENT, especially WP:LASTING. As the article says, "Riots on Bastille day are a frequent occurrence in France." Indeed, with no offense intended to anyone's sense of national pride, riots in France seem like a routine crime issue. With no fatalities or lasting significance, I think we can safely delete. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 4 December 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) 03:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable facts. France has a huge problem in integration young people of North African origin. User:Lucifero4 —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 12 December 2013‎

But do we need an article on every incident that occurs in that context? Would it not be better to discuss them in relation to a topic such as African immigration to France or Demographics of France? --BDD (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would not keep an article on every little civil disturbance, but this seems to be notable, based on 100s of cars being torched, many cops being injured, and over more than one day/night. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems to be a notable event if evaluating from the GNG standards.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 14 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Grantham[edit]

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

While the text describes the subject as an actress and a singer, the subject fails "notability" standards as both. There are no sources that support either claim. There are no sources that support the proposition that the subject is "notable" in those fields. There is coverage of some spat concerning her time as a Harvard student, but is only sourced to the Harvard Crimson. Therefore, this dispute is not notable in itself, or in the alternate, makes this article a case of WP:BLP1E, both of which are grounds for deletion. Hector the Toad (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm declining the speedy since I don't see enough proof to show that this is really the same user. A SPI can be opened, which would give more definitive proof. I'm also declining it since there is a valid argument for a lack of notability even if this is a sock or not, or even a bad faith nomination or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that an SPI has already been opened. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there can be found sources from outside Harvard. This is trivia, and I would have accepted the speedy. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No name, no notability, nothing written about her. The author of this article should familiarize himself with Wikipedia policies. Peggingflo (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)— Peggingflo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please be careful about how you phrase things. There has been some issue in other AfDs with people writing uncivil comments aimed towards User:MaxBrowne and other editors, so I would like to nicely ask that anyone coming in please try to phrase things in a way that doesn't come across as a little rude towards other editors. This wasn't an over the top comment or the worst thing I've ever seen written about another editor but given all of what has been going on, I'd like for everyone to exercise a bit more caution and diplomacy in this particular AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now that the sockpuppet is confirmed I feel free to comment.

The nomination was made in bad faith by a vindictive banned user who specifically targets me and articles I have created. That doesn't make it a keep of course, but I do wish admins would stop playing into his hands. Three times this week this person has targeted articles I have created or had a major hand in. Three times admins have acquiesced. Banned users should not be given the time of day.
I created this article a few years ago when wikipedia was a bit more free and easy and policies were less stringently enforced. I'm a huge fan of The Wire so I thought this article would be of interest.
There's already plenty of stuff about The Wire on wikipedia and people can probably find info about Wendy Grantham elsewhere if they're interested.
Thank you Tokyogirl79 for trying to bring this article up to standard.
I have to admit that apart from The Wire she hasn't had any prominent acting roles. As for her singing, most of it has just been low key stuff in clubs, weddings etc around Philadelphia. Her stoush with the professor at Harvard is kind of interesting but there really isn't enough material to justify an article.
At the end of the day I don't really care about this article all that much.
She sure was good in The Wire though.

MaxBrowne (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 December 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) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jheranie Boyd[edit]

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

No evidence that this individual meets WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NGRIDIRON and GNG. Being signed and released on the same day is weird.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only news-related articles I'm finding are straight-up statistics pages with no other content. Fails WP:GNG and any other measure I can find. Obviously, if he makes a pro team other than practice squad and plays then that would change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:51, 16 December 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 Star-nosed mole. Merge (or Smerge) away! SarahStierch (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanoreception in star-nosed mole[edit]

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

Student essay that would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. The lede needs a complete rewrite, all the images are broken, many of the links are broken and/or repetitive, rewrite for tone and plain english, etc. Almost all of the content is sourced to the work of Kenneth C. Catania and needs to be sourced to secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Star-nosed mole. It is undue weight to devote a page just to a single organ of this single species, although it would be quite appropriate to go into detail about it on the page about the species. It seems that most of the source material comes from primary sources ~~from a single author~~, and so we do not have the WP:GNG requirement that there be demonstrated interest from multiple sources over a period of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge into Star-nosed mole. The topic is certainly notable (see this GS search, which finds several non-Catania articles), and there is a lot of good stuff in this article. However, given the very serious article problems, it's best to pare this article back considerably, and the result would fit best (at least for now) as part of Star-nosed mole. -- 101.119.15.226 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not homework, and editors cannot keep up with the number of merges that would be needed to result in salvaging one or two sentences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per 101.119.15.226. The topic is notable but there's no reason to break it out from the parent article yet. Agree with others above that the article has multiple issues, but those are not valid reasons to delete. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge as suggested. Much of the information is encyclopedic, and there are good sources. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As a follow-up comment, the "smerge" would be fine with me, as I previously indicated, but I want to speak to the arguments that the topic is notable. There is sourcing, and the content, if properly written, is encyclopedic, but the case is very weak that there is such a preponderance of sourcing separate from the animal species that there would be justification for a standalone page, separate from our page about the species. It's like having a page about the Mouse tail: there certainly is information about that organ, but there is no reason to have a separate page about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is to smerge in this case; but certainly if we had enough good material, the organ could be spun out as a separate article again. -- 101.119.14.242 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Star-nosed mole. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 19 December 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) 16:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Massively fun[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Massively fun" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

It is possible that one or morte of their games might be notable, but I do not think there is yet evidence for the notability of the company DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 01:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 01:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Not yet. There are only two independent sources cited, and the second (the TechCrunch article) doesn't mention the company. I think this one will become notable in short time, but as of now there doesn't seem enough out there to pass GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as as WP:VG/RS. The two reliable sources in the article are good, but their subject is not the company, rather their game and their platform. I see many passing mentions of the company, mostly in context of their games, but nothing that covers the company itself. P.S. Their games might actually be notable (although it doesn't seem we have their articles), although this doesn't matter much as notability is not inherited. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:25, 14 December 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. I share Bearcat's concern about the nature of some of the opposition, but it does seem clear there is insufficient notability DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wehinger[edit]

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

There seems to have been a bit of a vandal issue here, with at least two different usernames over the past two years replacing large chunks of the article with metacommentary about how "Wikipedia is not for self-promotion" — but despite using an improper process, the vandals do have a valid point about how the article comes across. It is a likely WP:COI violation, as the creator's username was User:JWWebsites, and it contains virtually no real reliable sources and makes no particularly strong claim of notability. Pretty clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page and biography are self-promotion. The article does not link to any sources. There is no information on this person that is not put forward by the subject - Joe Wehinger.

This person is not notable and does not deserve a Wikipedia page per Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.136.239 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This person is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.123.95 (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll kindly understand if we don't trust that an anonymous IP who has never edited Wikipedia before is actually a disinterested party with a reliable and trustworthy judgement of an article topic's notability or lack thereof. AFD is a consensus of established users, not a "vote" that anonymous users are allowed to stack. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 01:25, 19 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Metro Bangladesh[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a streaming media web site. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. - Mr X 00:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Secret ^account 00:33, 18 December 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. Mike V • Talk 01:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers Prime: Powerful Alliances[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a TV movie. No evidence of notability and may be made up. - Mr X 00:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until the article has time to get built up. Redirect or Delete - Not yet officially announced, so no RS possible. Appears to still be in pre-production. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted as it does not contain any information about the movie. It only contains the name of actors in the movie. Also the article does not have a single source.--Param Mudgal (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable topic that violates WP:CRYSTAL. I did not find any reliable sources about this film. It looks like IMDb has a page here, but IMDb is highly questionable when it comes to future films. Even if we verified that plans for a sequel were announced, we would not have a stand-alone article because plans do not translate into an actual film. We would just report the news in a "Sequel" section at Transformers Prime Beast Hunters: Predacons Rising. @VMS Mosaic: Is this topic verified by any reliable sources? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being far TOO SOON for an article on this film "slated" for 2017 release. Allow back only when WP:NFF (paragrapgh 3) is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:25, 13 December 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) 17:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1966[edit]

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

A list of indiscriminate, ~~non-notable~~ information, pure listcruft JMHamo (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fellows of the Royal Society are automatically notable - it's the most significant honour awarded by Britain's most important and significant scientific society. Fellowship is generally only conferred to those who will meet our existing notability criteria, as they only award fellowships to those with a significant body of nationally and internationally important work, so multiple peer reviewed publications in major journals, Nature and the like. I believe all British Nobel prize winners were either existing fellows, or awarded a fellowship after winning. I'd note that List_of_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society already exists and deletion will have to determine not the notability issue, but whether we wish to present the fellowships on a year by year basis. Nick (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles such as List of Fellows of the Royal Society A,B,C exist already, where you can sort by year. I guess the question is should winners listed by year have their own article, like List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1965, List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1964, List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1963, List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1962 and so on... JMHamo (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neither indiscriminate nor non-notable. There is no other single article on Wikipedia which provides the same information, and the topic is indisputably notable. Pburka (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, FRSs are notable, but we already list them. This is the only one by year. If this is kept, we could have another 350 created. No, this is just list-cruft. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTPAPER Dream Focus 08:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other lists [7] only shows part of the list by alphabetical order. You can search by year, but only for those whose names begin wit A-C, and so on. List could be made perhaps to combine information from the year articles, so people could sort by year. I see nothing wrong with just having an article for each year, there enough valid information to put in it, and perhaps a dynamic list be made which gave you not just their name, but also a brief mention of why they are notable. That'd be useful. Dream Focus 08:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 08:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am working through these, but they'll take a few months to sort out. This is infinitely better than the existing list because the existing lists at List_of_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_A,B,C requires extensive curation and are out of date already. Every year it requires someone to take the names of the latest fellows, and insert them alphabetically in the new list. This hasn't happened for 2012 or 2013. Furthermore, there are details of birth/death that are included as well. By this method every sublist is WP:COMPLETE and will not need updating in the future, and the next list for 2014 is easily made when it's covered by news sources. We also need this list to go through and complete biographical stubs for all of the remaining fellows. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should use your sandbox, while you're working on articles. This still looks like pure listcruft to me, no prose, references or categories in many of the articles, e.g. List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1963 JMHamo (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 17 of those links are blue. It is thus a valid list article. Dream Focus 15:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is it valid when it's unreferenced, as many of them are? JMHamo (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - So just add a link to their official list, and its fine. [8] And the blue linked names have that information in those articles already. Dream Focus 17:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to nominating the page for deletion, User:JMHamo added a prose tag to it, suggesting that it could better be presented as prose. This suggestion makes no sense to me, as the article is a list (it says so in the title!). Can the nominator explain how he or she imagines the article could be improved by replacing the list with prose? Pburka (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, my bad, I have removed the tag. JMHamo (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The creator makes a fair point. There is value in having lists of fellows alphabetically, but the Royal Society is exceptional in being established in 1660 and having had a great many fellows in consequence. The fellows are notable regardless of whether they currently have an article. Some sort of chronological ordering is desirable. Whether it should be by having a single article for each year or, say, by decade is an editorial matter and not for AfD. Deleting this article would deny a solution. Being a work in progress is not a bar. --AJHingston (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AJHingston. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the keep votes and explanations are more persuasive to me than the nom. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 18:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. FRSs are notable and list by year is instructive. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - WP:Listcruft is about indiscriminate and trivial. I think a valid argument has been made against trivial due to the notability of the subject and I find the list far from indiscriminate as to make it on the list you must have been not only a Fellow of the Royal Society but also elected in a specific year. It's clearly a certifiable group. Mkdw ^talk 06:01, 17 December 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.