Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 December 14 December >

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 merge to Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado). Mkdwtalk 01:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arapahoe High School shooting[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Pierson


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

WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, school shootings are just not that notable. There were no victims, and I doubt any societal change will occur from this incident. Wikipedia has no deadline, and if it becomes apparent that this is something more than a simple crime, we can write a story on it then. John from Idegon (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the event will likely spark another debate on gun control and this shooting will be referenced a lot in the coming months. Please note that I created this article. Newyorkadam (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
I also disagree. The frequency of school shootings does not make these events less notable. Also here the proximity to Columbine and Aurora, though arguably spurious, will magnify the public's interest in this event.Dvfinnh (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree. This is absolutely notable and to say it is not is heartless. Also, there are reported victims, unlike you stated above.[1] This in no way should be nominated for deletion.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- not notable in the grand scheme of things. If this is notable, we have to make an article for every gang bang that happened today. The kid used a shotgun, not a contentious weapon. Overall, not notable, in the encyclopedia. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:45, 13 ::December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This was a school shooting. When a shooting happens in a school it usually gets a lot of national media attention. Shootings at schools are not an everyday occurrence and only happen once every few months. The shooter also committed suicide at the school and apparently had the intention to kill a lot of people, which definitely is not similar to a typical gang-related shooting that happens everyday. Cyanidethistles (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Counter: Just because something happens in a school, doesn't alone make it notable. Just because it crosses Brian Williams desk for 15 seconds doesn't make it worthy of an article. The Dekalb school incident of 2013 also had an article here that was also correctly deleted even though the talking heads on 24 hour infotainment channels tried to make some money on it. This was not a spree shooting. This was not perpetrated with a special gun control target weapon. this appears to be something that happens when you have 300 million people in a technologically connected world. People do bad things sometimes. In 1950, nobody outside the local newspaper would report this. It's not notable-Justanonymous (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Okay, I suppose I agree. I don't really think that this shooting really warrants an article but I was giving out how I felt about all of this. Also, there are articles for Mumford High School shooting and SuccessTech Academy shooting. The Mumford shooting in Detroit doesn't seem to have any national news sources covering it and was just another inner city gang-related shooting that happened outside of the school. I'm surprised those are still up.
Disagree. "This was not perpetrated with a special gun control target weapon." That's a really poor argument. That's like saying that shootings that don't serve a particular political narrative aren't worthy of inclusion.24.14.55.138 (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indeed, this event is notable because (as I suspect we will see more of soon) a school resource officer immediately confronted the shooter, before he could harm more than one other person, and as we saw with the Navy Yard shooting, a pump shotgun can easily be used to lethal effect: despite the legislative/media focus on military-style rifles, more mass shootings have been perpetrated with handguns and pump action shotguns. These factors make the event highly politically relevant. Tbessler (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanidethistles (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge to Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado). I agree with the nomination. It's too soon to create an article on this event. We don't know whether this will have a lasting effect, and to assert that it will is speculation. Wikipedia is not a memorial, so whether we're heartless or not is irrelevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge is probably more appropriate, as the long line of merge votes attests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The article was created with what was originally a section for Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado). [Soffredo] Journeyman Editor 00:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I support a prompt Merge or a Delete. Before too much work so done and wasted.-Justanonymous (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: It should be added as a section on the Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado) article, at least for now. As aforementioned, Wikipedia is not a memorial. I don't believe there is enough information to create an independent article just yet, but information will be added as the story progresses. If something that makes this shooting notable by itself surfaces, or the section becomes long enough, then this article could possibly be recreated, but for now, this event is too new and there aren't currently enough details. TCMemoire (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado). No murder victims, not notable, WP:NOT#NEWS. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado). Only the perpetrator was killed- he shot himself with his shotgun. One female 15-year-old student is critically wounded and in trauma surgery- it is not clear whether she will live, or not- a second injured student was treated for a minor gunshot wound at the hospital and released. It is indisputable that any school shooting- indeed, any loss of life- is tragic and unfortunate, especially for the affected parties, and so I do sympathize with those who disagree. However, Wikipedia's stand-alone articles in the category of school shootings, especially now, unfortunately, that they are seemingly more frequent (or at least make the news more) should be reserved for multi-casualty (and I mean deaths, or at least truly significant injuries) events, or, failing that criteria, those which make wide headlines for well-established reasons (they trigger federal or other noteworthy legislation and/or court cases, or are linked to other newsworthy phenomena). Since for now it appears to be a non-gang small incident, it might have a place within the actual high school's article, and in the lists that Wikipedia keeps of U.S. school shooting incidents- though I could also endorse eventual deletion. 67.184.212.160 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This event, while some may not view it as being worth having a standalone article, should, at the very least be mentioned on the main page for Arapahoe High School, as it does by now consist a part of the school's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comwhiz2002 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect with history - Article should either be kept, or redirected to Arapahoe High School with history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Since the article doesn't have much, merge it with the school's article. Corn cheese (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado). This is a notable part of the school's history but not notable enough to stand-alone.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Note that there is now an article on the shooter, Karl Pierson. I've changed this to a redirect twice & been reverted with an accusation of vandalism by the article creator, & am not going to break the three revert rule for something so trivial.TheLongTone (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado). WP is not a newspaper. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado) **and** make sure this page redirects there. People googling for this shooting should be led to the relevant information on the relevant page, even if it's not terribly notable.Oathed (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- This entry is more of a sensational, knee-jerk reaction to an event than documenting anything useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.219.4 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the school article per WP:NOTNEWS. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into school article and redirect to that section per all of the salient points made above. I agree that the incident should be documented if for no other reason that there have been sufficient shooting incidents in Colorado to justify the existence of Colorado shooting. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Really, the only reason this story is gaining so much attention is because it landed on the near-first anniversary of the Newtown massacre. --GeicoHen (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It looks like the precedent that has been set is that each one of these shootings get their own page. I haven't seen any real argument to break that precedent. This story is still being reported on, and details are still coming out. The sheriff has appointed a team, and they're searching the shooters home in order to find out why this happened. A teacher being targeted for murder as part of what was apparently a failed mass-murder plot (as a fire was started with Molotov cocktails) isn't a casual occurrence as some would suggest. As some have noted, this was on the eve of the anniversary of the Newtown massacre, which is an unlikely coincidence, but more importantly the quick response (about 5 min) of the deputies may have prevented this from becoming another Newtown massacre. All the arguments against this article are centered around this incidence not being notable enough. That's a pretty weak argument on 2 counts, first this is being reported on by major news outlets, and second, there appears to still be a lot more to this story that hasn't been uncovered yet.24.14.55.138 (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— 24.14.55.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Ditto with what everybody else has stated. The main reason people perform these stunts is for sensationalism. Why contribute to the spectacle? Besides, it's not like Wikipedia is hiding or deleting the information, just moving it to someplace more appropriate per this situation. The real reasons for these school shootings, people fail or refuse to properly punish or care for their children. In my school days, we were to scared to walk the hallways without permission! --roger (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has been a major national news story for a couple of days. That's more than enough for me to support keeping it (with Karl Pierson re-directing to the article). Alternatively, merge this article with Colorado shooting and expand Colorado shooting to an article. I'd also like to note that it's too early to delete this article for a lack of content, per Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles. Orser67 (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deletion of this article, and merge of a summary of the info into the Arapahoe High School article. This apparently disturbed young man shot himself when confronted, and Wikipedia is not a news service with a one-event article on every individual who commits a crime. Also agree with the argument above that Wikipedia need not provide a page for every mentally disturbed person who finds they can gain immortality in the encyclopedia of knowledge by picking up a weapon and attempting something harmful to fellow humans. N2e (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stay: Even though Shooting was a big thing, like the Columbine High School shooting(not far from Arapahoe High) or the one that happen a year ago today(December 14, 2013), it shows that if this happen again, then people can see what they can do in this situation. That was a really good idea for librarian to leave school. See also what happen aftermath. Also people are saying there no victims, I don't know if they have been reading or watching news lately, one is still in critically condition, she can die from this, but do we know that right now. No, so I say stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.87.110 (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There seems to be an argument saying that keeping this page will encourage more events. There's no real evidence for that, besides there's no Wikipedia rule that I know of that says they don't document events if they're afraid they might occur again. So that should be ignored as an argument. Also people seem to be ignoring the known fact that this event represents a student targeting a teacher for murder at their school. That is NOT an everyday occurrence. This represents a rare event and shouldn't be ignored or brushed aside as if it is a common occurrence as some would suggest. Also being ignored in the arguments is the fact that this student started a fire at the school, and may have planned a mass-murder event (we still don't really know yet). Additionally the improved response time by the deputes (due to previous travesties) may have been what prevented this from becoming a mass-murder. I find it hard to accept arguments that simply ignore these issues are serious arguments.24.12.6.25 (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— 24.12.6.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the reasons for deletion given in our deletion policy applies. The amount and duration of coverage in major news media clearly establishes notability.  --Lambiam 11:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOTNEWS. As an example of the scanty international coverage of this event, the BBC news website [1] did not cover it.TheLongTone (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Err, you might want to check again ... the term "Arapahoe" was not spelled correctly. WWGB (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My typing has always been rubbish. Nevertheless I doubt that this event will create the kind of lasting coverage to make it notable.TheLongTone (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And after the spelling is corrected you find several entries on the BBC website. Likewise for The Guardian, Russia Today, Le Monde, El País, The Times of India, and Asahi Shimbun (search for アラパホ), these just being the international media I checked.  --Lambiam
Which I do not deny: the fact remains that this is an incident that will be largely forgotten in a couple of weeks.TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How could you possibly know that?24.12.6.25 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado) - Wikipedia requires persistent in addition to significant coverage in reliable sources for a subject to have its article. The event itself, sadly, isn't all that special. Not a high death toll (only the perpetrator died) and not a lot of injury (only 1 injured). This information is clearly better suited for the article on the high school where this shooting took place. I have very little doubt that this event will be forgotten in a few weeks. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepComment You said it isn't all that special. Is it not that special for a student to show up at school with guns targeting the murder of one of their teachers, and to set fire to their school? I can't think of that happening before, so I'd like to see your sources. Also, you forget that one girl is in critical condition, so we don't know the "death toll" yet. There's no way to predict when this even will "be forgotten", so that argument is not valid.24.12.6.25 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that this isn't morally inexcusable. As a human being I detest any and every kind of event like this. However, we shouldn't make this justification for making school shootings rise above all of the other violent acts that happen every day in this world. For Wikipedia, we want to cover the most significant and widely-studied topics. Although it's sad, I'm not convinced this is one of them. The information will still be included in Wikipedia, I'm just proposing we move it to the high school article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado). Although it is not a world changing event, it is a major event in the history of that school. spiderwing (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepComment Is "world changing event" a criteria for admission into Wikipedia? As noted above, this event has been reported on internationally. Would the Arapahoe High School Wiki page mention it as the only internationally reported event in the schools entire history? If so, wouldn't that seem rather odd that there wasn't an independent page? 24.12.6.25 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Sadly commonplace in the USA. Analysis in secondary sources is lacking. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anything that dominates the news cycle like this really should be kept. This event is known nationwide. --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  1. The existence or not of this article is not subject to anyone's emotion. The "heartless" comment above is out of line.
  2. The "domination" of the news cycle in the US is not a reason for this article to exist, because there is a whole lot of English speaking world where it is not. This is not US.Wikipedia, it is en.wikipedia. Also the specific policy WP:NOTNEWS that I cited in the nom applies.
  3. Comparing the edits on this school shooting to the Sandy Hook shooting--well, there is no comparison. That article was on fire for a week after the incident. This one, hardly at all. That indicates the lack of general interest, and by extension, this incident's importance.

I would also add that merge would be a very acceptable outcome to the nominator. John from Idegon (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Remarks
  1. I agree with this.
  2. This is not US.Wikipedia but US events are extremely important.
  3. There's less edits because there's less information.

--Rockstonetalk to me! 23:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into high school article. Currently lots of news coverage but not a lot of info, especially to sustain an article. Best course of action is to keep it in the high school article summary-style until it proves to have enough to warrant full article treatment. czar ♔ 05:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This is worth noting in the school's article as it is a verifiable event noted in reliable sources, but as others have said, we are not a newspaper, so far no one as died, only one person was hurt, and people do bad things like this every day. It's cruel, indeed, and it's sad that the victim must endure this, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 14:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into school history. --DHeyward (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per many others. This is merely a one victim shooting. These, alas, happen many times a day in the United States. Even school shootings are distressingly common. So much so that my local papers usually cover them around page 30 or so. Resolute 01:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chalk up another vote for merge. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SENSE as school shootings that result in multiple fatalities and that are covered in international reliable sources are sufficiently "notable" for inclusion here. And as others have said, such incident do indeed spark policy debates among politicians as well. There is really no actual reason for deletion beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not an actual reason. --24.112.187.219 (talk) 01:22, 22 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 one "keep" opinion does not make a meaningful argument in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Sandstein  09:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid (card game)[edit]

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

Non-notable product. The original game as featured on the 1970s TV show Battlestar Galactica had no "rules" and was merely improvised by the cast for each scene in which it appeared. This is a separate, commercial product which does not meet WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is my correct understanding, that what was on TV was just a prop. The fan game version was made after the series ended. The rules can be found from blackberry App Store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.89.156 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly delete. There appear to have been several fan and commercial versions of the game, but none of them, nor the prop game of the actual TV show, have sufficient independent coverage to be separately notable. Some, but not all, of this content (not the detailed rules, for example) could be merged into an appropriate Glactica article, in which case this should be retained as a redirect to preserve attributions. DES (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rules are copyrighted from Karl Rasmussen in 1980 according to June 2010 of this original history file. Please lets not endorse a vendors rule for our beloved show. Please remove the rules as they are not important to the history of BSG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.89.156 (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; seems to be short of notability, and deletion is one way (although not the best way) to resolve the copyright dispute. bobrayner (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So how do we Delete the vendor rules from the tv show. Remember this is only a prop and was never a real game other than the vendor,s claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.89.156 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 December 2013‎
      • Discuss it there to form a consensus to remove the info in question. If you mean remove due to claiming copyright on the rules, please note that the claim in question was already rejected in a recent ANI post earlier removals of that material. In other words, you will need a reason other that copyright to remove it.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The ANI discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Copyright claim on Pyramid (card game). But the issue here is the notability of the entire concept, the detailed rules are, er a detail. DES (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but the person I was responding to also earlier suggested removing the rules as a copyright violation and I wanted to make it clear that a consensus to delete here would not be one to remove the info from related pages (the show the fictional game game from) as a copyright violation. There may be good reason to remove such info from those other articles but that would not be one of them.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this page should be kept because, I think the article should be informative to card players who play different card games like FreeCell and Solitare. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 01:33, 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) 02:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Model Management[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since '10. After a PROD, the creator promised sources and never delivered. Someone on the talk page never found coverage and neither can I; there are only occasional management credits for models (and apparently Lindsay Lohan's boyfriend), which certainly is not enough to establish notability.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no evidence to support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preechaya Pongthananikorn[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. This person does not appear to have any notability outside of the Thai movie, ATM: Er Rak Error. The film has a claim for notability, but while Pongthananikorn plays a major role in it, I doubt her significance in Thailand extends beyond that to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 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.  Sandstein  09:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Force[edit]

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

This went through an AfD nomination two years ago with the consensus being 'Keep based on more information being out there than the single source of the so-called Master. The remaining information out there are forums and blogs and there has been no addition or expansion to the artilce. I see nothing to demonstrate that the concept is notable and anything more than an English term used by some to describe terms in broader usage. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article serves only to promote and dignify a completely non-notable concept. Worst I have seen in a long time. --nonsense ferret 21:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The article has issues but a Google search turns up quite a few articles criticizing and denouncing the concept. That is a strong indicator of notability. It may be difficult to rewrite this article with WP:NPOV in mind, but not impossible. Ivanvector (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be more convincedof notability if third party reliable sources could be found.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On reviewing the sources that I could find, I wasn't able to confirm that any were independent either of the "Masters" or of schools which claim to teach the Empty Force. I'm not very familiar with this subject area, but after reviewing the criteria listed at WP:WPMA/N I have to change my !vote to delete. Paul Dong is not notable on his own and does not confer notability on this, the history of Empty Force is not externally verifiable, there is no indication that there are a notably large number of students or followers, and although there does seem to be some indication of its use in MMA tournaments this is dubious at best. Ivanvector (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with Hocus_Pocus_(magic). Datavortex (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a non-notable neologism and offers a small amount of encyclopedic content that is backed up by reliable sources. Mkdwtalk 03:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I said at the first AfD discussion, there's a lack of significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neologism without independent coverage. jmcw (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no coverage independent of Dong, who is likewise non-notable. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking around for sources, I find nothing that establishes notability of the articles topic. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:38, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kishan Harchandani[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted via AfD, but enough new here to avoid db-repost. However, even with the addition, I really don't see notability here. He created some posters and won a Facebook contest. The other listed award does not appear to be a notable award. Safiel (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks the coverage needed to establish notability. Best coverage is a mention of him winning a contest in crowd-souring a movie poster. Falls well short of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Slattery (poet)[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, and the event in question is a teapot tempest over alleged plagiarism in a redlinked poetry prize. Original claims to notability evaporate somewhat when you find they are a different Andrew Slattery. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same Andrew Slattery. Did you read the talk page of the article?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If they are one person I'm saying it's at best a borderline wp:BLP1E problem - the award is a second notable event. But given the accusations of plagiarism we are very very deep into wp:BLP territory if we can't get who's who definitively sorted out. If Andrew Slattery the screenwriter is different from Andrew Slattery the poet then that leaves us in quite a lot of trouble. I'm saying Delete under wp:BLP unless we can prove things beyond reasonable doubt. Which, apparently, they are. In whcih case Keep Neonchameleon (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that the Andrew Slattery being discussed is both a poet and a screenwriter - there are reliable sources, including newspaper coverage, that goes back to his earlier awards making the connection clear, and Andrew Slattery used to bill himself as a screenwriter and poet prior to the plagiarism accusations emerging. There appears to be some reputation management going on that has heavily involved Wikipedia. Whether or not the screenwriting and poetry awards are enough to overcome BLP1E is a different issue, though. - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same person. That is absolutely established. The person saying otherwise on OTRS is a liar. JzG, you've been used. Hesperian 00:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multi-award winning minor poet involved in a major international scandal. Heavily referenced. Factual and neutral. Don't be fooled by the army of sockpuppets muddying the waters with lies and vandalism. Hesperian 00:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments from Bilby and Hesperian. Also, the warning from Hesperian regarding the issue suggests a very actual careful read of things by closing person, rather than a superficial analysis satusuro 02:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject would be notable for awards only, and the plagiarims incident would be notable per se -all together, we have a BLP notable for multiple, independent events. There are WP:UNDUE issues for sure, but deletion is not cleanup. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:35, 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) 02:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy Football FC[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur football team which appears to be largely some sort of obscure philosophy-based joke. Lots of references in the article but none that cover the team in any depth (or indeed at all) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the links I checked referred to the shirts the parent company sells, or the three sided football match they played as a stunt. I'm leaning delete. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – does not appear to meet the relevant notability criteria. C679 22:51, 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safer Wholesale[edit]

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

Per removed prod: It is one of companies that maintains an Ecommerce store without any major significance or encyclopedic reference. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The reason isn't even written in good English. Look at Fiverr, TaskRabbit and other similar sites - they also read like an Advertorial. Fiverr has been tagged for 14 months as an advertisement - I assume they contributed heavily to avoid deletion?TheDailyFlows (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the other articles: I have thanked you for your input on your talk page. The discussion of those articles can continue there and/or on the talk pages of the respective articles and/or on any future deletion discussion pages related to those articles, not here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: The nomination is admittedly poor grammar, I copied it verbatim from the contested proposed deletion. Additional (and perhaps this should be considered the primary) reason for nominating: The references do not demonstrate that this company has received significant coverage independent of the company itself (i.e. it fails WP:GNG) and I can't see any reason why it might pass WP:CORP either, at least not given the text present as of the version dated 19:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Grammar is moot, and fixable by the many contributors who'll see the page. Care to skim the numerous businesses existing on Wikipedia that lack notational 'girth'? According to the 'tests' you are suggesting my page wouldn't pass, 3/4 of Wikipedia's listed businesses would cease to exist - so my suggestion is to delete them all, out of fairness. Also, request deletion of Fiverr as numerous articles written about the site doesn't prove encyclopedic worth, and most of the page reads like an advertisement as well.TheDailyFlows (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The proper place to discuss other pages is on the talk page of those specific articles or on the talk pages of other editors which are already involved. In any case, we would not do en masse deletions for something that requires an article-by-article evaluation. With a few exceptions such as articles on notable topics that are clearly written so poorly that it's best to WP:STARTOVER, editors will not agree to delete an article merely on the basis of the quality of the text. Editors typically agree to delete an article if there is insufficient evidence in the article that the subject of the article (in this case, the company itself) meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, combined with a lack of any expectation that references could be easily found which could be added to the article to demonstrate that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you have specific articles you want me to look at, please list the least-notable-looking companies' articles on my talk page and I will look at them and we will go from there. This page is not the place to continue this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Honestly, it seems every editor working for Wikipedia loves throwing their weight around - that's all I've been getting (mods deleting, telling me where I can write). Let's be frank here: Wikipedia is far removed from 'Holy Grail of Information' status; every article in Wikipedia is easily locatable online using Google. Every other day, I see the infamous 'begging for spare change' banner above the fold on Wikipedia, sadly stating how Wikipedia needs my donation to pay for servers, pay for editor assistance - can you see why people aren't inclined to donate? You have hundreds of editors running around with hundreds of different opinions on what is 'plausible for inclusion' on this site when, in essence, the internet already has this information anyway. Every editor can tell you to 'read another page', but cannot mark the areas that are deemed inappropriate - and you guys think your worthy of receiving donations?
All I wanted to do was write an article about Safer Wholesale; to this minute, although I've been read the riot act on WHY my article is a candidate for deletion, I've not actually been shown viable evidence as to HOW. If you wish to streamline edits, perhaps streamline our job by pointing out these areas where content is deemed 'advertorial' or 'inappropriate' - because without being shown a preponderance of evidence as to why our pages are being deleted, we as writers will find your words to hold little importance - from there, Wikipedia goes southward.TheDailyFlows (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We honestly appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia. Please try to understand that content that is included on Wikipedia is expected to meet an encyclopedic standard, the definition of which has evolved over time and is subject to the consensus of everyone who contributes. There are established guidelines as to what qualifies as "encyclopedic" per the community's definition, such as the very general guidelines on WP:CORP - the notability of corporate entities - which we have referred to. We haven't discussed the guidelines here in great detail because that page exists with a top-level summary of all of these discussions which have already occurred over many years here. Based on that, it is my opinion (but not necessarily fact) that Safer Wholesale does not currently meet the inclusion standards, because there is a lack of independent sources to demonstrate why it should be included. That is my review of the notability of the company. Please also try to understand that we are not attacking you or your work - this is not in any way a review of the quality of what you have created. Please don't let this discourage you from participating. Ivanvector (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(veering off-topic) I concur wholeheartedly with those last two sentences - we are not attacking you and I hope this experience does not discourage you from participating. It's unfortunate that you happened to pick a company which doesn't seem to qualify for an article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Company fails WP:CORP. All links I can find are sourced by PRwire and similar websites, the content of which are likely to have been press releases from the company itself (see WP:IS) or review pieces for products that the company sells, all of which fail to demonstrate notability. Notability could be demonstrated by (for example) an in-depth review of the company's operations in a well-known business magazine, but I don't see anything like that. The reviews of the products that the company sells might be useful to demonstrate notability of the product but even that is slim, and doesn't apply here. The fact that there are other Wikipedia articles about marginally notable ecommerce websites is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, either. Ivanvector (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing that I see in that article supports any claim of notability in the article. No one denies that the company exists, but that's not enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Google returns mostly self-generated content. As it stands, the subject fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most sources in the article are not independent (company pages and press releases and the like) and the remainder are mere directory entries or other very passing mentions. None of them even start to establish notability. A Google search found more of the same, plus reviews of Safer's merchandise that mention Safer itself only in passing. No relevant Google-news hits. No significant, much less in-depth, discussion by an independent source. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:CORP. For an online merchant, I would expect online sources to exist, so the usual cavaet about possible off-line sources does not apply. Unless substantial new sources are addded, this should be deleted. DES (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable company failing WP:Corp abd created by a wp:SPA. Trying to defend the page through WP:OSE never helps. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (off-topic) Please do not assume brand-new accounts are single-purpose accounts. A significant number of "established editors" including myself started by editing either a single article or a set of related articles in their first few days or weeks here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP; sources do not meet WP:RS. Miniapolis 23:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in regards to WP:CORP. I see very little sigcov. Aside from the new and now block editor's comments this has arguments towards a speedy or even snow deletion. Mkdwtalk 00:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – people are citing WP:CORP but are failing to describe exactly how it fails WP:CORP with these sources and notability. Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of stating the obvious, WP:CORP requires that, among other things, there exist reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article that, taken together, provide significant coverage of the topic. Of the 6 sources listed in the 00:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC) edit, two are clearly not independent of the subject (sources 4 and 5) and the rest, taken one at a time, clearly do not provide the depth of coverage required by WP:CORP. Even looked at collectively, sources 1, 2, 3, and 6 do not provide the depth of coverage required by WP:CORP, as most or all of them are providing only "routine" information (see WP:CORPDEPTH) and therefore contributing nothing or nearly nothing to the combined "significance" of the coverage across sources 1, 2, 3, and 6. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    citation #3 (WhoIs registrant information, Safer Wholesale) is not independent either. Although maintained by a registrar, such information is supplied by the registrant, i.e. the company. Cites 1 and 6 are information about the web site, not about the company. The total content of cite 2 is:

    "SaferWholesale.com sell over 18,000 items. Fun products for less. Go Karts, Atvs, Scooters, Dirt Bikes, Utility Vehicles. Save Money today.

    plus a telephone number. Hardly in-depth coverage, indeed it has noting of value but evidence that the company exists. Absent additional sources being added I see nothing to debate. Epicgenius, do you claim that this even comes close to passing WP:CORP? if so, how? DES (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @DESiegel: Nope, just wondering if this passes WP:CORP. My decision now is to delete. Epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not pass notability tests. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to pass our notability guidelines at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to this 2009 record of a legal settlement, the company is actually registered under the Great Sports, Inc., name. They do business under a variety of other names: this BBB listing has the most comprehensive list I've found. These alternate names may help someone find more information and better assess notability - and make the article's coverage more accurate. I'm finding mostly reviews, myself, so putting the info here for those with a better handle on business searches. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the ecommerce website, not its parent company. If Great Sports were itself a notable company, Safer Wholesale would still not stand up to AfD but may warrant a small mention on the parent company's page. I looked quickly, and "great sports" is an admittedly difficult search to judge by ghits, but from what I can tell there are none for the company other than promo/selfpubs, reviews of products, etc., which are the same issues that I and others noted above. If the page existed and we merged this page into it, it would still not survive AfD. Still delete. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of every company in the US. Must have real sources. Speciate (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being listed on Alexa does not automatically make companies notable. Search results are largely repetitive, most of these being catalogues. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 02:10, 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.  Sandstein  09:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Felt ball rug[edit]

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

Fails WP: GNG Admiral Caius (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- unsourced microstub. Why is this filed under "fiction and the arts"? Reyk YO! 06:49, 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) 02:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Clement[edit]

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

I do not think he meets WP:PROF. Is only an assistant professor in the USA where we know that professorships aren't as prestigious as elsewhereBarney the barney barney (talk) 17:49, 13 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? 18:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Junior academic in the dismal sciences. Some high cites in GS with h-index of around 8. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 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 University of Liverpool. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Teaching Hub, University of Liverpool[edit]

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

Undistinguished building, no 3rd party sources, I don;t tink a generictitle like this is even worth a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is at least one claim to notability, in the Guardian, and a weak one in the S-lab award. There may well be enough out there to push it over the notability threshold. Nevertheless, the article might be better merged into University of Liverpool unless it can be fleshed out with the reasons why it is notable. --AJHingston (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Merge to University of Liverpool. There's some coverage in the Higher Education Network of The Guardian, which would be a good basis for inclusion in the main article. But no other independent coverage that I can see, certainly not enough independent coverage to warrant its own article. Sionk (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University of Liverpool, per reasons already supplied. Most University articles have sub-sections detailing prominent buildings on their campuses. GRUcrule (talk) 15:32, 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 speedy delete.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parveen Chopra[edit]

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

to follow Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parveen Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. This has been raised at Wikipediocracy and also at user talk:Jimbo Wales.
  2. It is a biography of a living person.
  3. The article appears to have an origin that is conflicted.
  4. There are various awards mentioned, but most seem redlinked and I am unable to judge thier notability (Prestigious Haywood Burns Memorial Award Liberty Bell Award, "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Award" - which sounds impressive [2] - but he doesn't appear on the Fellowship of Reconciliation's list of previous winners, so it must be a different award?
    • The one award that has an article is the Ellis_Island_Medal_of_Honor seems to be regularly given out to both high and low notability individuals, so despite the attempts of the article to link Mr Chopra with "six Presidents of America, many Nobel laureates, generals, chief justices and other very outstanding citizens of America" who have also received it, I'm not especially impressed.
  5. The claims that he "excels in academics", specifically the fields of business studies and management studies, and it might be worth checking whether he meets WP:PROF.

If we decide it's notable, the article needs gutting to remove promotional content and to add reliable sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:VANISPAM ukexpat (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Ugh, blatant promotion. Only tiny sliver of possible notability comes from publicity he received as an alleged slumlord[3] if this is the same person. How surprising that this wasn't in the article! Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 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. Mkdwtalk 01:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Fernandez Lamela[edit]

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

There is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Not only are the sources not independent, but several of them don't even mention Damian Fernandez Lamela, and others barely mention him, such as including his name in a list. The results of a Google search for his name start with Linkedin and this Wikipedia article, and then go on to such things as a blogspot page that merely mentions him in passing, pages that merely include his name in a list, other listings pages giving bare biographical details, about.me/fernandezlamela/collections, a page entitled "Damian fernandez lamela - names of cute babys" (which is as trivial, and as little related to him, as one would guess from the title), etc etc. No sign of significant coverage in any source of any kind. (Note: A PROD was removed by an IP editor.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Effectively a CV of a man with a job. The nearest to a claim of notability might be the claim that he wrote a book which was one of the top 5 sellers of its type in one particular bookshop, but even that is unsubstantiated and would be of dubious notability even if verified. Fails biographical notability criteria. (A paragraph of the article text matches the summary here so if the article survives, it needs WP:COPYVIO pruning.) AllyD (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm shocked, shocked that a personal CV created by a wp:SPA fails wp:Bio. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:ACADEMIC, fails WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like Neonchameleon I'm shocked that a marketing specialist's article displays more puffery than evidence of scholarly impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 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. Mkdwtalk 01:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Nahak[edit]

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

This article is totally 'unencyclopedic', with lots of POV. Challengethelimits (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - creator and sole editor is a WP:SPA (who has tried to create a redirect to Facebook) and google gets me nothing. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per reasons already listed. I couldn't find anything worthwhile, either. GRUcrule (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: all of the references given in the article (other than the Facebook one and the one that isn't properly formatted) are articles which talk about Arijit Singh, and don't mention Sagar Nahak at all. There is no link between the two indicated that I can see. Is "Arijit Singh" a stage name, or are these just nonsense sources? Ivanvector (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article was copy of another singer's article Arijit Singh. Have stripped it down now. Looks delete worthy. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under criterion A7. With all of the content removed which was not about this person in the first place, all that's left is a link to the Facebook profile of a non-notable person. Ivanvector (talk) 18:51, 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) 02:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoodHire[edit]

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

looks like an advert. Fails WP:CORP LibStar (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't appear to be notable enough (see this search). — Carnivorous Bunny (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional article that does not satisfactorily establish notability. Press releases are not reliable sources for much of anything beyond dates and names, and they certainly don't establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a near wp:SPA is the only contributor (far better than most of the ones we see here, admittedly). And with CarnivorousBunny's search above, and a lack of notability on the page it looks non-notable to me. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article sourced to primary sources, PR and passing mentions. No evidence provided or found that this service , or the company that offers it, is notable. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete clearly a promotional article. Very little attempt at reaching to be an encyclopedic article. Does not seem to meet WP:CORP. Mkdwtalk 00:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to fail WP:CORP. Press releases are available, but source searches are not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:23, 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. If you have an issue with the closing of this discussion, please take it to Deletion review. I am happy to userfy an article, just ask. Thanks for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Perfettini[edit]

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

Foreign Language. Tritario (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It says that he was awarded with the Legion of Honour, the highest military honor in France. If that's true, then he's notable. However, I don't know where to look to validate this. I don't see any evidence on Google, and the official web site does not have a list of all recipients. Maybe a Frenchman can help. In the absence of any evidence validating that this man has been awarded the honor, the article should probably be deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page isn't in English - and the French Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a page by that name. They were added to the list of Legion of Honour recipients just over five years ago by someone who wasn't logged in. The CFNPA appears to be the Centre de Formation du Personnel Navigant en Amérique - in other words a training batallion. (Babelfish also claims he was a French general). I'm leaning towards delete as a hoax that we haven't got rid of? Of course if anyone trumps my research, that's fine. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment found a source http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/contenu/functions/dc/attached/FRSHD_PUB_00000261_dc/FRSHD_PUB_00000261_dc_att-FRSHD_PUB_00000261.pdf (French govt site) which on p 117 of a long pdf lists him as "824- Général Jacques PERFETTINI 1951-1954 : chef d’escadrille, puis commandant du GC II/6 « Normandie-Niemen ». Page 112 is the beginning of that list, of people interviewed for an oral history of the "armee de l'air" (air force?). So he doesn't look to be a hoax. Might be someone's non-notable grandfather, unless the Legion d'honneur is verifiable. PamD 22:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the Legion d'Honneur added out of nowhere by a not logged in user years ato I was suspecting was a hoax. We need sources on that. For now it's not wp:verifiable and without it he isn't notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Being in a foreign language is not in itself a deletion criterion. I came to this article via WP:Pages needing translation into English; for future note, non-English articles should be tagged with the not English template and reported there, as this one was, unless they replicate a topic we already have an article on, or also exist on a foreign-language Wikipedia, both of which are speedy deletion criteria. I haven't yet looked for sources, but I've translated the text, reaching the same conclusion about the CFNPA as Neonchameleon. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, it's been two days, and nobody has found evidence of his notability. Seeing as how it's a bit unlikely that there would be no coverage of such a great honor, I'm going to agree that the award is a possible hoax. If someone does find citations, then he's clearly notable, and the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:02, 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 no consensus. Opinions are divided between deleting the article per WP:BIODEL, and keeping it because of the subject's notability. There's therefore no consensus for deletion. According to WP:BIODEL, "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete" (italics in the original). In this case, I choose not to do so, because (a) the identity of the person requesting deletion is not verified (e.g. via WP:OTRS), and (b) the arguments for not deleting it are strong. As has been established, the article is mostly based on information publicly revealed and published on the Internet by Lisa Koonce herself, or with her consent. This makes the only reason why she would want to delete this article the fact that she can't exercise control over it. But we must not take this into consideration, because it would be contrary to our core policy of neutrality, as well as other principles of Wikipedia, to allow article subjects, or anyone else, exclusive control over our content.  Sandstein  12:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Koonce[edit]

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

Lisa Koonce has asked me to have this page removed as she does not want her life on the internet. I am the Marketing and Communications Manager for the Department of Accounting at the McCombs School of Business. Stockwellapril (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sorry, but unfortunately that is not a valid deletion argument. The article states that she has a named chair and this seems to be confirmed by her departmental website. Therefore she is notable under [[WP:ACADEMIC]). The article doesn't seem to contain any harmful information, either. --Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIODEL. A non-public figure may request deletion of one's Wikipedia article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Randykitty (talk · contribs) that the article doesn't appear to contain anything privacy-violating (e.g. date of birth, mother's maiden name etc which would be useful for identity theft). Assuming the information is accurate, there shouldn't be a problem with it as long as the subject is notable. I don't think that anyone could reasonably associate having a Wikipedia biography with endorsement of Wikipedia (this means that in practice some will but as with anything in life you can't legislate for idiots). Not sure about the notability however, despite the named chair. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment she's non-public and not terribly notable. I'd support deletion WP:BIODEL - but only under the condition that it was made unambiguous (to an admin, not to everyone) that it was her asking for this rather than a third party who could be anyone. I don't know the process for this. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to neutral for the moment. Presumably, Dr. Koonce would have to go through OTRS to confirm that this is indeed her personal wish. I'd also be interested to see what DGG thinks of this case. --Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NinjaRobotPirate's comment, subject to validation of the request. stockwellapril's Wikipedia history is not particularly clean (sorry). We must respect Dr. Koonce's wishes but I suggest Wikipedia should confirm the validity of the request first (I don't know how that works). The page is otherwise fine (she is notable, no contentious info, etc). Could the page be courtesy blanked in the meantime? Ivanvector (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability is more than borderline notability , she holds an endowed chair at a university. Her life is already on the internet, and that by her own choice, because she prepared a profile in linkedin. She sat for an interview on her university paper, and that's her own choice also. She has her bio on her university site, and her full CV there also , but perhaps they forced her to do it against her will. But she has a lecture posted on flickr; of course that could have been taken against hew will also. . This being Texas, her grading scale is public , and so is her salary, which I will not link to. The only time I have every accepted following the choice of the subject is when the net result would be unfair. The principle of BLP is "do no harm" and I cannot see how an objective bio of someone in a relatively public position . based entirely on sourced publicly available data, can do it. If we removed on this basis, then we would end up with the bios of only those living people who liked their bios and wanted the publicity--in other words, a cheap replica of WhosWhoInAmerica, or, has been suggested, the bios of those people who support us. I would strongly be opposed to blanking during the discussion--that's appropriate when there's questionable material of some sort, but there isn't. (If on the other hand, there are significant reasons I am not aware of, the request should be sent to OTRS, but no such reasons have been even suggested. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you admit this bio, which is based on publicly available info, is essentially a CV, except one she has no control over. Control. That's the key difference, isn't it, between all the different websites you listed where her info is available, and her page here. Anybody can edit this wikipedia article. Would you want your CV to be editable by everyone with internet access? By the way, putting her wishes aside, do you think the quality of the wiki is enhanced by hosting what amounts to academic bio webpages that are already available on universities' own websites? 2604:2000:FFC0:7B:CBF:5409:6EB4:DAB3 (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yjay argument doesn't hold. At least 80% of our articles are based on sources easily available on the web. That's not a reason to delete them. --Randykitty (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is based on the quality of the sources, not on the fact that they're available on the web. An article based on CVs will read like a CV. The result will not be an encyclopedia article. Thanks for your comment anyway. 2604:2000:FFC0:7B:CBF:5409:6EB4:DAB3 (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GS h-index around 21 in a highly cited field probably passes WP:Prof#C1 plus chair. Credit to nom for declaring his COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: There is no argument here as to Dr. Koonce's notability - she is certainly notable as DGG and Xxanthippe wisely discussed. This AfD is in response to a request (purportedly) from Dr. Koonce herself to have the page about her removed. Is she a significantly public figure to oppose a WP:BIODEL request on those grounds? I don't see any thorough discussion on Wikipedia about how to determine that. She is a Chair at a (private?) university, but is that a sufficiently public position? Prestigious, certainly, but would a student at her university be likely to recognize her name or identify her position, other than those in her own department? I don't know but I am leaning towards no. I will note that in the last 90 days the page recorded only 227 pagehits, of which 80 occurred after the article was nominated for AfD. Also, I respectfully reject the argument that having one's personal information published online qualifies one as a public figure, as in the age of free information and accountability this would qualify a staggeringly large and growing number of people as public figures. Ivanvector (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, a staggeringly large number people's bios are, and if the information there can do harm the question becomes whether WP can do any harm beyond what is there elsewhere . But that's not the question here, since the information cannot do harm: the question is the absurd reason she gives, of wanting to remove her presence on the internet. Since it will be present none the less, and she has in some cases cooperating with her university & its newspaper in making her presence visible in the internet , it makes no sense to try remove it for WP to accomplish that purpose. It was asked "would you want your CV to be edited by people you had no control over"? It it is based on the same sources as what is public, no harm is done to me by it. If it is unfair or misrepresented or vandalized, we have excellent means of dealing with it, much more effective than most internet sites. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There seems to be no information in the article that does not already exist in web sources put in place by the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I understand what you're both saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. I see nothing in the article that could be considered even remotely harmful to Dr. Koonce, and if there was I would enthusiastically participate in repairing it. Even if there was contentious info here but it was backed up by a good citation, we would still keep it. But that's not the issue here. She is the subject of the article and she has requested its removal - I don't believe that WP:BIODEL requires that she have a good reason, or a rational or logical reason, or even a reason at all, she just happens to have given one (via nom). The only issue here is whether she is a sufficiently public figure that we can justify ignoring her request, and I believe the answer is no. Ivanvector (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a policy or precedent that supports that? I am not aware of any. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I was linking to WP:BIODEL, which also has links to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. They are not extensive policies, and I'm not familiar with any precedents. Wikipedia's definition of non-public figures is not particularly helpful here. Ivanvector (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However there is also a much more extensive policy on low-profile persons which seems like it applies here. Under "eminence": "holds a position of preeminence, power or authority in a field of research ... usually at more than a locally-significant level. Such a position ... is evidence of projection of self identity into the public consciousness." I would say that holding an endowed chair at an internationally recognized "elite" business school more than satisfies that definition. Therefore I agree we should respectfully decline Dr. Koonce's request and keep this article. Ivanvector (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought it might help if I added in the Contact Us page from McCombs to verify who I am: (blanked; see comment below) Lisa Koonce is trying to control her presence on the Internet and this page was created without her knowledge and she is frustrated she cannot control the content like our McCombs pages that I maintain. Also, in relation to my record not being very clean, that was several years ago. At the time I was submitting educational links that directly related to the pages. I had been instructed to do this as part of my job and when it was made clear by editors like you that it wasn't allowed on Wikipedia, I stopped and made certain the company pulled this activity from their social media plans.Stockwellapril (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing this and for doing that. I didn't mean to imply you were up to no good, and I apologize for compelling you to post a link with your personal info; editors should not have to do that. As a courtesy I have removed the link. There is a secure process for confirming your identity if that turns out to be necessary for some reason, but you've already disclosed your conflict of interest and that's really all that's necessary here.
We have very strict policies on biographies of living persons and editors are expected to take them seriously. The policy is extensive, but the key points are that all information must present a neutral point of view and that any information that is in any way likely to be challenged is backed up by very good reliable sources. You could think of Dr. Koonce's page as a curation of information that is publicly available. Part of the policy states that we do not honour deletion requests from public figures, and based on our discussion above the consensus appears to be that Dr. Koonce meets our definition. As such, her page is likely to remain. As for control, that is not entirely correct. Your best bet is to get familiar with our policies on conflicts of interest and to be very careful with that in mind, but you can absolutely participate. You can make noncontroversial edits to the page if you back it up with an independent source, and feel free to suggest improvements by going through the article's talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:BIODEL. DGG's refers to sources that most any professor in the United States would have. When the bio looks like a resume, i'm inclined to support a BIODEL request.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The h-index of 21 is above average for professors in the US and a bit over the borderline adopted in these Afds. (I wish we had better data). Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I've never relied too much myself on the h-index number, but I understand why this one is subject to debate.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of a h-index depends on the subject. 21 would not be notable in the biomedical sciences. In business, it would be. That it is is shown by the appointment to an endowed chair.This explicitly meets the requirement for WP:PROF, and by our normal standards there would be no further discussion. Someone who so clearly meets the standard is not borderline. Most professors in the US dod not hold endowed chairs, far from it. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 22 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) 00:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a Commander[edit]

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

All sources are dead and redirect to the article. This looks like original research, and purely expresses a personal analysis of the artist's work. I think this is too long and too messy to be maintained, especially with no references. Tco03displays (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This artical is very messy and relies purely on OR and It looks like it is beyond hope.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NUKEANDPAVE or failing that speedy delete. The article itself is beyond hope and someone needs to talk to the editor about what makes a good wikipedia article. Portrait of a Commander on the other hand is itself notable as a multi million pound suspected fake by Peter Paul Reubens. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there's a start. Got to run off now, but I believe that to be a notable stub rather than a truly terrible Wikipedia article that starts off with a biography of Reubens. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after Neonchameleon's rewrite. PamD 18:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice work by Neonchameleon. --Tco03displays (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article as rewritten by Neonchameleon. Nice work indeed. Ivanvector (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment The painting is actually named "A Commander being armed for Battle", not portrait of a commander (which may explain why sources have been so hard to find). Sources for the name I provided (as well as proof of notability):

-http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/29/us-finearts-princessdiana-idUSTRE62S31H20100329 -http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293877/Is-Earl-Spencer-Rubens-9m-fake-Experts-cast-doubt-provenance-painting.html Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thanks. Should make things easier to find. On the other hand I'm going to take the name as listed by Christies ("ORTRAIT OF A COMMANDER, THREE-QUARTER-LENGTH, BEING DRESSED FOR BATTLE" - legitimately shortened to Portrait of a Commander) over the name as listed by the Daily Mail. Both are legitimate, however Neonchameleon (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I'll create a redirect in case someone looks up the painting with the name I listed.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it now is. Can someone close this now & well done on the rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Tel Aviv[edit]

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

No references for a first. Are we to have special pages for derbies between local teams? Is this really important or adds something new that cannot be found in the pages relevant to the teams or the national results of the matches? I think this kind of article is unnecessary for Wikipedia. Tco03displays (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this article has no sources to prove notability under wp:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Tel Aviv derby "This kind of article" has no place in Wikipedia? We have articles about sports rivalries everywhere. Also, the fact that the article itself has no sources is not a reason to delete. There are numerous media mentions of the Tel Aviv Derby referring to either the soccer or basketball clubs of Maccabi and Hapoel facing off: [4], [5], [6], [7]. It looks like the article may have been a translation from the Hebrew version. I can try to improve the language and sourcing based on that version. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Tel Aviv derby is one of the biggest in Israel, and we have plenty of articles on football derbies (see {{United Kingdom football derbies}}). I have improved the article with some references and cleaned up the text. However, someone needs to have a word with the author, as he is creating a stream of awful machine-translated articles. Number 57 22:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fair enough, you've also changed my mind with your statements.--Tco03displays (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a notable sporting rivalry, covered in detail by reliable sources. GiantSnowman 16:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a lack of references in an article does not prove a subject is non-notable. The derby has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After looking at only a few sources it's clear there is some significant coverage. Mkdwtalk 04:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – a notable rivalry as demonstrated by links in the discussion here. Further, recommend nominator reads WP:BEFORE. C679 22:50, 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. Mkdwtalk 01:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DropMind[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - MrX 13:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good Article: Contains all the info I need and is definitely Wiki style. From what I can see all the obstacles that users have reported and would go in favor of deleting have been removed. The software is definitely notable and the tons of references below show the benefits it might bring. --Jordevstefan (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No 3rd party sources to prove notability under wp:nsoftware.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Software seems interesting enough but without sufficient sources it can't claim notability or be expanded.--Tco03displays (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.
  2. The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.
  3. The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.
  4. It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert notability.
If you can show that Dropmind fits any of those categories, I'd be delighted to see the evidence and will change to a keep. But from what I've seen it doesn't - Google gave me nothing useful just now. But I can't, unfortunately read the Swedish press at all and don't know what e.g. notable newspapers in Sweden would be. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice article Dropmind notable because:
  1. Is actively taking part in biggest mind mapping community Biggerplate http://www.biggerplate.com/mindmapping-software/dropmind where people share different maps for education, learning and business.
  2. There is a free desktop version of dropmind that is widely used by students and universities http://www.dropmind.com/free-mindmapping-software; http://www.teachersfirst.com/single.cfm?id=10178;.
  3. there is a free Ipad/iphone lite version of drop mind that is used by student from many universities round the globe https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dropmind-lite-mind-mapping/id483116055?mt=8;
  4. few independent references where software is reviewed through the years: http://mindmappingsoftwareblog.com/dropmind/ ; http://www.mind-mapping.org/blog/2013/08/dropmind-revisited/ ; http://www.hypershifters.com/blog/2011-09-05/dropmind-web-review-–-part-2.html  ; http://www.appvita.com/2009/05/22/dropmind-mapping-your-thoughts-in-a-more-structured-way/ ; http://www.cloudtools.nl/saas-samenwerken/review-dropmind-web-online-mindmappen-gekoppeld-aan-andere-software/ ; http://sujay-ghosh.blogspot.com/2010/10/dropmind-product-review-picture-your.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gancev (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Gancev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Informative article for widely used product The product exists several years on the market and is available on different platforms. Here are some references that I found about DropMind. Defiantly notable product, here are the sources:
  • The product is available on the largest mind mapping community in the world – Biggerpalte, where people download FREE useful mind maps/template:

http://biggerplateblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/dropmind-arrives-on-biggerplate.html; http://www.mindmaphub.com/dropmind-joins-biggerplate-mind-map-library/.

http://www.educationtech-nation.com/#!organization-tools/c2417; http://www.indoition.com/de/kreativitaet-produktivitaet-tools-technische-dokumentation.htm; http://bloggingexperiment.com/time-management-tactics-and-resources.

  • Self-governing reviews for DropMind on different blogs:

http://mind-map.akamonitor.cz/2011/07/dropmind-mm-software-slideshow-review.html; http://www.mind-mapping.org/blog/2013/08/dropmind-revisited/ ; http://www.freemindparlexemple.fr/2011/08/dropmind-version-3-un-challenger-de.html; http://assistivetek.blogspot.com/2009/12/seavus-dropmind-11-is-released.html; http://digitalmindmap.blogspot.com/2011/12/dropmind-takes-your-research-to-another.html; https://paulhami.edublogs.org/tag/dropmind/; http://www.visual-mapping.com/2009/02/dropmind-brand-new-mind-mapping.html; http://wwwhatsnew.com/2011/04/07/dropmind-siente-piensa-y-disena-tu-mapa-mental/; http://mindmapblog.com/?p=4690.

  • DropMind on iPad :

http://dailyappshow.com/create-a-visual-map-of-your-next-brilliant-idea-with-dropmind-for-ipad; http://torres21.typepad.com/apps/2013/04/dropmind-lite.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zokii tr (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC) — Zokii tr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. Most of the article is about the Seavus company, which is covered by it's own article. No need to have a seperate article for this product, just to squeeze in two descriptive sentences. Maybe a section about the software could be added to the Seavus (company) article? Josh3580talk/hist 17:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems legit: This article has good information. It is written in an unbiased manner. --Magjov (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)— Magjov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Redirect- to Seavus company. No notability apart from parent company. Refs in article do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources, and are instead blogs, incidental mentions, or company pages. A search did not reveal significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 07:12, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Kingston and R-Truth[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was: Non-notable tag team. Held the belts once, and never teamed since. Fails WP:GNG. — Richard BB 12:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - PWI Tag Team of the Year in 2012 and holders of the WWF Tag Team Championship. These facts, put together, clearly establish notabililty. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This still isn't enough to pass WP:GNG; there has not been significant coverage as this guideline requires. — Richard BB 23:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another brief random pairing of two midcarders. Fails GNG as nom points out.LM2000 (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom and LM2000. No Notable, we can include the information in their articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 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 Wrong forum. Not a deletion request, but a move request, see WP:RM.  Sandstein  10:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Barkov[edit]

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

The father's name is Alexander, not Aleksander according to various sources. I am proposing we move Jr. to Aleksander Barkov and Sr. to Alexander Barkov --K.Annoyomous (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move if The name is wrong a move is the best choice. also note that the discussion of moving articles it ment to be on the talk page not AFD.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (no prejudice to moving pages if primary is proved or name changes, e.g. Alexandr/Aleksander) I looked through the incoming links to the page, and corrected a link - therefore there are now 3 valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep not a correct AFD it should be a move. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:38, 26 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 The Legend of Korra. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amon (The Legend of Korra)[edit]

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

Main villain for Legend of Korra season 1; seems to fail on notability. Three sources are cited in the article, neither of which focuses on him. Wired mentions him in briefly in passing, so do the two sources used for the reception section of the article - IGN episode and season reviews, which are primarily summaries ([8], [9]). I looked for reliable sources we should use instead, and there's not much. TOR blog is the only one semi-reliable source that focuses on this character, and by itself it is not enough. LoK is an important series, but outside the title character, nothing from the fictional world it created seems to meet encyclopedic criteria of notability. This entry is much better left to wikia ([10]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've heavily edited most articles related to this TV series, and I'm not aware of any reilable source that addresses this particular supporting character in sufficient detail to impart notability. That the article is mostly plot summary is another indication of the lack of real-world coverage.  Sandstein  20:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Legend of Korra: I have to say, this is a much better article than most of the ones about fictional characters that I've seen get nominated for deletion. The "Reception" section contains some interesting information that establishes the out-of-universe perspective that these kinds of articles need, and while Amon isn't the central focus of any of the sources, the two articles by IGN each devote an entire paragraph to analyzing his character, while the article by Wired Magazine devotes several paragraphs to discussing the development of his character. I feel that this is enough to display significant coverage, even if just barely; however I still feel that this should be merged, since there is nothing in the article that couldn't be discussed in the "Reception" and "Cast and characters" sections of The Legend of Korra, while the development info from the Wired article (which hasn't actually been incorporated into this article yet) should be added to the "Production" section of that article. --Jpcase (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Merge to The Legend of Korra. Most of the character articles of this series are almost entirely plot summary. The same goes for Katara, Sokka, et. al, although the case with Amon seems to be a lot worse. It's amazing that the Aang article managed to stay afloat. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 13:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE Mkdwtalk 01:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerri Davis[edit]

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

Sadly, Gerri Davis might not meet our WP:ARTIST guidelines at this time. There has been some coverage of her on Artnet, but that's only one reliable secondary source that has written about her somewhat extensively that I have easily been able to find. The other sources are primary or mere mentions. While she has shown at some nice galleries, I can't find strong areas where she would pass ARTIST yet. Sadly, I think it might be WP:TOOSOON for her to be on Wikipedia. She has mere mentions in some notable and non notable sources, and then two articles about herself [11][12]. Perhaps those two are enough to pass GNG? I'm having a tough time making this call. SarahStierch (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:54, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not seeing any coverage in mainstream, reliable sources. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. If the creator would show any interest, we could userfy it, through it appears they are no longer interested in maintaining this topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:45, 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) 02:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia DeBrincat[edit]

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

After some research, and reviewing of current citations, this article appears to fail WP:ARTIST, sadly. I like her work, but, all of the citations I have found are mere mentions. Her most notable exhibition appears to be a few pieces in a hotel in NYC. I think right now, it might be WP:TOOSOON for DeBrincat to have their own article. SarahStierch (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:55, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - her CV is online and for a CV to have an absence of evidence of notability is pretty strong evidence of absence. If she's notable she isn't claiming it. Fails WP:ARTIST] Neonchameleon (talk) 20:41, 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. Secret account 01:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alysah Pizarro[edit]

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

Contested prod (no reason given) - Subject fails WP:NACTOR, which requires significant roles in multiple productions. AussieLegend (✉) 08:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:58, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both NACTOR and BIO. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Her listing on IMDB is tiny and she's not otherwise notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:44, 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. Mkdwtalk 01:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Markes International[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this small company , because all the references are trivial or promotional, or -- usually -- both. . The prizes mentioned are very local, or trivial , DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:58, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find anything to stop it failing wp:NCORP on either Google or Google News. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:CORP. not one mention in UK's biggest media outet, BBC. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tough call. It could be notable enough. But I only found passing references in my Google news search. I don't agree with the above that it has to be in the BBC to prove notability. In a niche sector that can be unlikely. I think we can rely on niche publishers for coverage to show notability for niche industries. But only this http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/appointments/german-firm-buys-majority-stake-2497841 and this http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/journals/mrn0999.htm possibly show notability. But both of these could also be based on press and certainly seem to be rather passing references however. The rest are press or based on press or even just listings in directories. I'm shocked that this passed AfC in the state that it is in. Thanks. For me unless a few more better references can be found it should not pass. I also think it should be edited to remove the press releases and directory listings. However, Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Markes+International%22 shows many results for products made by the company being used in experiments. I'm not expert enough to judge whether this can contribute to Notability. Perhaps someone or the editor of the article can explore this angle more. GoldenClockCar (talk) 15:27, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra Arellano[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, not sure whether it meets WP:NACTOR but more than one source is needed. The source appears to be a profile on the official site of a convention held in 2004 that Arellano was involved with, and unless it's a particularly notable event doesn't indicate notability. The article (or one probably about the same person) has been deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia for not meeting the equivalent guideline there. Peter James (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 November 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) 02:26, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:28, 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 redirect to Animorphs#Animorphs. And delete beforehand.  Sandstein  11:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aximili-Esgarrouth-Isthill[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Animorphs through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 30 November 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) 02:30, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:26, 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 redirect to Raubtier. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Det Finns Bara Krig[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUM - "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." ... Raubtier#Det_Finns_Bara_Krig_.282009.29 includes the track listing, which is all that is listed in this article. As notability is not inherited and this album does not appear (though I know little Swedish to discern whether or not those articles that appear on Google News confer notability) to have gained significant enough media coverage to meet GNG. Go Phightins! 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:41, 29 November 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) 02:32, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as there is no discussion of the notability of the album, only a tracklist, and the artist's page already contains the tracklist for this album. As I understand WP:N and WP:NALBUM, the album should demonstrate notability to an English audience to meet notability requirements for English Wikipedia; likewise for Wikipedia in other languages. Therefore Google News hits in Swedish would not demonstrate English notability. A satisfactory source would be, for example, an English-language review demonstrating the importance of the album. Ivanvector (talk) 16:40, 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.  Sandstein  11:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Boyvin de Bonnetot[edit]

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

Non-notable inventor. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable inventor? Fly in the eighteenth century was not for anyone. Izahias (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:31, 7 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) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not temporary although this really is pushing it. According to French Wikipedia he was written up by Rousseau as inspiration for his essay "The New Daedalus" (unsourced there). That's notable as well. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for its early (and documented) attempt to fly and for the relevance given to it by Rousseau.--Lal.sacienne (talk) 11:00, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Samartis[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. gnews reveals little hits and none is indepth. possible WP:COI LibStar (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 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) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable - all the hits anywhere notable are photos that he took relating to something else and being discussed as the subject rather than the photographer. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:41, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Scheufele[edit]

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

Promotional article about non notable jewelry executive. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be promotional, but that does not mean it is unnotable, as she has been the subject of several other articles in reliable sources: [13] [14] In addition, she seems to have won an award from a well known organization: [15] Jinkinson talk to me 16:13, 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) 05:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That's not at all what I was expecting from a promotional article. Profiles in the Telegraph and FT? Neonchameleon (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has sufficient coverage in reliable, high quality sources as pointed out above. Mabalu (talk) 13:19, 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: Although I have not done so as part of the deletion process, I am happy to recover the content into user or draft space on request, to allow it to be re-used in other appropriate places. Harrias talk 13:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Putin[edit]

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

Individual does not seem particularly notable. Main source is more of a resume than anything. Does not seem to have extensive coverage in independent sources.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: article has sources from several major Russian business papers. Matty.007 17:05, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone know their way round Russian newspapers? User:Matty.007 asserts they are notable, and for now I'll go with that - but would like confirmation? Neonchameleon (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't read the sources but I had a look at where they came from and they seemed to be from good quality Russian news papers. Thanks, Matty.007 22:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not much content there; stylistically, article is just a resume. APerson (talk!) 20:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to some other article -- but I don't know what that article would be. This is a conundrum, as I see it. Roman Putin has received some coverage in published sources (instances in English that I found include [16] and numerous different published versions of [17]), possibly marginally passing the WP:GNG. He doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO, though -- he doesn't have the kind of record of accomplishments that are required there. Whatever renown he has appears to be due to his being related to Vladimir Putin, and notability is not inherited. Considering those factors, this would be a delete. However, published sources have paid attention to him and they have done so because of that relationship to V.P. -- somewhat like the way that media pay attention to members of royal families. He's not royalty, but his family connection might cause him to leap into high public visibility (and notability) in the future. Accordingly, I don't think he is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone biography, but it would be good to keep some content about him. A logical place for that would either be an article about one of his enterprises or the article about his cousin, Vladimir Putin. --Orlady (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RSUE.--Launchballer 22:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Russian-language coverage is no more substantial than the English-language coverage. This page, the biography on his company's website (which does not qualify as independent coverage), and a couple of news items where his name is mentioned in passing are the only Russian-language items I've seen that are not also in English. As with the English-language coverage, when Russian sources cover him in depth, the focus of interest is on his relationship to Vladimir Putin. --Orlady (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While there is coverage, none of it is significant coverage per WP:GNG, which is why the article reads like a resume. The two features which draw news coverage to the topic, Vladimir Putin's cousin and chairman of MRT Group, do not seem to prompt the newspaper writers to go more in depth about Roman Putin's life. We do not have an MRT Group article and the Roman Putin information probably would not make its way into the Vladimir Putin article. I'm fine with userfying the article to User:Яна Задорожная/Roman Putin so that User:Яна Задорожная can decide where the source information might fit within Wikipedia. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if the Russian language sources are as thin as the English languages ones as asserted below, then this individual does not meet WP:BIO. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:59, 26 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 no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Nowell Graham[edit]

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

I tried hard to establish notability (GNG and WP:ARTIST) for Margaret Nowell Graham. You can see my attempt to draft a new article here.

  • She has one painting that seems to be mentioned in a few places, but, no significant coverage about her work.
  • The one mention of her in a book about American watercolor artists is a Wikipedia book, FYI.

The other sources provided are mere mentions about a fund named after her.

I can't figure out how she passes our WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST guidelines. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. SarahStierch (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's a harsh nomination because she was active over 100 years ago when the achievements of women were less valued and less recorded. The article claims her paintings are in the public collections of two notable institutions - if that were verifiable I'd advocate a 'weak keep'. However, the Reynolda House collections are searchable online and there's no longer trace of her there. She is mentioned in a 1996 news article about her painting of Reynolda House - maybe the painting has subsequently been passed on? This magazine article suggests they still hold copyright. Sionk (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean it to be a "harsh" nomination. It's just tough - I know there is a systemtic bias about historical women (and anyone who isn't a white dude, generally, based on my line of research work), I just am really struggling to find much, outside of calling the institutions. It never makes me happy to nominate articles like this, but, the Wikipedian in me would feel like I didn't do my "job" if I didn't bring it to discussion. SarahStierch (talk) 00:35, 11 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) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep Notability isn't temporary - but sources are. That she's got that much after so long (including a fund named after her) is saying good things for her notability, especially with the anti-female bias. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The work at UNC that you mentioned is a part of the North Carolina Collection, and more likely than not was a correspondence between her and another more prominent figure, though it could have been a work of art. The archival format indicated by the worldcat entry and my further research to the UNC library catalog is normally used in storing correspondence. I'm not entirely sure that having material contained in the NCC makes one notable, because the collection contains every undergrad thesis published before the mid-2000s, and I believe they still store all graduate theses and dissertations (they may have moved to electronic, though). It also contains many historical phonebooks and letters between people who may or may not be notable, but simply may be connected to a notable event in North Carolina history. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as explained above, I'm not entirely sure the NCC source establishes notability, nor am I convinced that her painting of Reynolda House meets the criteria of WP:ARTIST. It is a borderline case, but I'm not convinced that this merits inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 24 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. Mkdwtalk 01:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don Keenan (company director)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:10, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm no rugby expert, but I don't see that he's a notable rugby player or that he passes any other notability standards.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one more puff piece. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:BIO. His achievements are minor. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor referenced and a non notable company director. Unless if someone provides a reliable source, I'll change my vote. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:34, 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 Speedy Keep. No rationale for deletion given. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitão Brasil[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP editor 177.161.117.128; no reason given. I am neutral. Ansh666 20:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:43, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Speedy] keep. Capitão Brasil seems to be analogous to a Brazilian Captain America, and judging by a quick Google search is quite well known, even in English. Speedy because no reason was given for deletion in the first place. Article is a mess but can be easily fixed up. Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 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 redirect to Power_Rangers_Samurai. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Anne Pirtle[edit]

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

No evidence of this subject meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO as her only major role is Power Rangers Samurai (her other roles were just short cameos or extras), no major contributions to the entertainment industry, and no awards or recognitions for her work. I am also nominating her castmate Alex Heartman for the same reason of him not meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO with his only major role being Power Rangers Samurai too and not enough evidence of notability beyond that.

Alex Heartman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (maybe) Merge and Redirect to Power Rangers Samurai. I was having a hard time finding multiple reliable secondary sources that cover her extensively. And most of the citations that User:Ryulong mentioned aren't reliable except the fitness link. I think it's safe to merge this until she lands more work outside of power rangers... n'stuff. SarahStierch (talk) 00:27, 13 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) 05:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON Power rangers Samurai actor - film out this year. She's a good chance of becoming notable (wp:CRYSTAL applies) but right now she's just the one thing. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Neochameleon, no evidence of being notable outside of Power Rangers. 69.122.93.205 (talk) 14:58, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sticks[edit]

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

Previous AfD (against an earlier incarnation of this article) failed when the previous article was speedily deleted. This band appears to fail all aspects of WP:BAND. Half of the links given are dead, the other half are YouTube links and thus not reliable sources. Safiel (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The previous incarnation of the article was speedied because the original author blanked it, not because any consensus was established, though it did seem that the article would have failed at that time anyway. I don't see that any members of the band would confer notability or are even notable themselves. However, I know this is a stretch, but their claim to having played a gig at the highest elevation in the UK is perhaps notable, and has a verifiable reference. YouTube of course should not be used as a reference, however the other linked articles although dead now would have been published at one time and might be available to a dedicated researcher to improve this article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a review by the BBC, although it's very short and not particularly favourable. Ivanvector (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I repaired one of the dead links to a valid review indicating the band has "already gained a esteemed reputation and a posse of loyal fans." !vote changed to keep. Should also be renamed to The Sticks (band) or (UK band) as appropriate, to disambiguate from The Sticks (album). Ivanvector (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How does any of that pass wp:BAND? Neonchameleon (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting that any of those things would have satisfied WP:BAND if they were independently covered. I checked & revised some more of the refs in the article, but I am now seeing that all mentions of the band are published in just one newspaper, which happens to also be located in the town where the band is from. And actually the two that I found were published on the same day. I didn't find any reference to their "highest elevation" gig (that link is also dead). Therefore I now also !vote delete. It's possible they may have been notable at one time but they are not now. Ivanvector (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 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) 02:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Naslund[edit]

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

I don't think this person meets the requirements for relevance to have their own page. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.30.96 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent book reviews of substance. -- GreenC 07:38, 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) 02:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Lord[edit]

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

I came across this by way of the Chryzinium AfD. There's just enough here to where it could squeak by a speedy deletion, but I don't see where Lord really passes notability guidelines. He's written one book that doesn't seem to have gotten any coverage per WP:NBOOK and none of his work in film seems to be particularly noteworthy per Wikipedia's guidelines. I can't find any coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. I found his Flickr page, but that's about it. His book seems to be print on demand, which limits the coverage. I don't see any way for him to pass the WP:GNG, as the IMDb is simply not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources and the page creator appears to be a WP:SPA to this person and his new film. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 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) 02:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chryzinium[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:NFILM. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing this film. Proposed deletion contested by author. ... discospinster talk 03:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails criterial for inclusion.
  • Delete. I feel for the author, but this film just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Distribute it on Netflix, and I might watch it. But it's not currently notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum for free promotion of upcoming films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources and the page creator appears to be a WP:SPA to this film and the director. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFILM and/or WP:CRYSTAL. I could not find any sources discussing this not-yet-released film. Also note that the film's director's Wiki page is also in AfD and looks to be failing, thus there is no reason to expect that the film will be notable even when it is released. Ivanvector (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as mentioned above the film has next to no coverage to meet WP:NFILM or even WP:GNG. Mkdwtalk 00:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEDAY. Wikipedia needs to be based on secondary sources, especially when it comes to the notability of films. Database pages are not enough since IMDb has pages for both notable and non-notable movies. If there is coverage about this film by reliable sources, we can revisit this topic's notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete per WP:NOT YET (films). VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:44, 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 redirected to Santana discography. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 00:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Santana Unofficial Album[edit]

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

completely obscure unofficial pressing of unknown origin. not even sure this qualifies as important for fans/completionists. needless to say, no refs found. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 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) 03:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interface Security Systems[edit]

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

Promotional article on at most borderline notable company The ref that they are the "leader in cloud managed services" is their own web site; the other refs are mere notices. The extensive duplication in the infobox of all their products is characteristic of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:38, 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE Mkdwtalk 01:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fit Couture[edit]

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

No significant evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dead links. I haven't found more than press releases and the page has been mostly dead (and started out as promotional. Soft delete Neonchameleon (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete. Based on a Google search, the only sources at this time seem to be promotional primary sources and possibly one independent source that isn't a blog. There doesn't seem to be much interest outside of the Houston area. Perhaps the business will gain notability through future reliable third-party sources if it expands, but for now, it isn't notable. TCMemoire (talk) 18:48, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene McCarthy (biologist)[edit]

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

Not notable. A man with a blog making ridiculous claims, which have been repeated by a few other blogs and less reliable press sources (we don't e.g. use the Daily Mail as a good source for science). JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Weak delete'. With GS cites of 179, 129, 105, 47, 49, 19, 13.... looks too early yet for WP:Prof#C1. Pop impact might help. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete for a "leading geneticist" he apparently isn't employed by a university, so is an "independent researcher", which in an academic field where you need large financial grants just for basic lab equipment, is a WP:YELLOWFLAG. PZ Myers is right. The "Monkey Fucking a Pig hypothesis" goes against what we understand about hybridisation whereby closely related species may interbreed, but those more evolutionarily distant cannot because their genes are incompatible. Paradigm shifts in science are rare and when they do happen they usually go from prescientific ideas to scientific ones, or the new paradigm does not explicitly contradict the previous one adds a level of complexity to it. OUP seem to be uneasy about publishing it and I can see why. It would be better if he could get his ideas published in a peer reviewed journal first.Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:BLP1E ("monkey fucking a pig hypothesis"). Just because someone's a crank doesn't make them non-notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in fact it makes them more notable as cranks are rare and precious. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health aid+[edit]

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

I can't find any mention of this organization other than its own social network pages.

Also:

  • According to their LinkedIn page, they only have 16 members.
  • The charity's official website claims to that it is a registered charity of England and Wales. I checked the database of registered charity: neither "Health Aid+" nor "Health Aid Plus" appeared anywhere.
  • According to their Facebook page, their main e-mail address is [email protected]. I've never seen a notable organization use a gmail account as its main line.
  • I can't find any of the references to mention the organization. Going through the references by number (as of the current version):
  1. Not a reference
  2. Official website
  3. Not a reference
  4. Non-existing link to BBC. I couldn't find it on any web archive either. In fact, there's no mention of this organization on BBC anywhere.
  5. Never mentions the organization
  6. This is a link to an iCloud document. I can't actually see this, because it requires a login.
  7. Not a reference
  8. iCloud
  9. iCloud
  10. Dead link. The archived version makes no mention of the organization.
  11. Not a reference
  12. iCloud
  13. Dead link. The archived version doesn't mention the organization.
  14. Links to a website called "Design to Improve Life". There is no mention of the organization on the entire domain
  15. Dead link. Archived version doesn't mention organization
  16. Dead link. Archived version doesn't mention organization Prof. Squirrel (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Devastating nomination. I found a couple of links on Google - mostly letters to the editor. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete clearly fails reliability criteria as determined by summary of references above. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:40, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primecoin[edit]

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

User:A5b has raised a concern that "the only good source is self-published paper from coin's author", and WP:PROD-ed the article. I believe that this article can potentially be improved, and that a wider community discussion would be of greater benefit. No !vote from me yet, I'm neutral for now. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Of the sources in the article, the scholarly papers do not refer at all to Primecoin, and the rest are not RS with the possible exception of the 'Bitcoin Magazine' link - this is significant coverage, and the source may or may not be RS - it could be worth raising at reliable sources noticeboard if this point becomes important to the afd discussion.Dialectric (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is independent coverage of primecoin here: Technical Basis of Digital Currencies (via Scholar) `a5b (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed paper by a student in a Computer Science MA program, and thus does little to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly debate Primecoin is one of the fastest rising cryptocurrencies, already ninth out of many dozens in market capitalization. One of very few with current practical use beyond speculation. You could argue that the article needs improvement but deletion is silly. FleaSpirit (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)FleaSpirit[reply]
  • Keep. I don't disagree that it could benefit from more editing, but deletion doesn't make sense to me. It certainly exists, however it came to exist, and it's being used and discussed and mined in the cryptocurrency community. It has at least one unique feature: the work done to generate the cryptocurrency have some use... at least to number theorists. With the hashing proof of work systems that's all wasted CPU, GPU and ASIC effort. This in itself should merit keeping information about it available. Disclaimer: I have no Primecoin, Bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency holdings. User:Scryer 22:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are significant differences between Primecoin and the rest of the cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin. This article just needs more sources, not deletion. Tom (talk) 23:07, 11 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, postdlf (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Being the 9th most popular cryptocurrency is no great claim to fame. Apart from Bitcoin, the volume, market cap and notoriety of these currencies is vanishingly small. There's a passing reference to the currency in this NY Times piece (In Bitcoin’s Orbit: Rival Virtual Currencies Vie for Acceptance), half a sentence about it in MoneyWeek (Are cryptocurrencies the new dotcom stocks?), and it's included in a list in Vanity Fair (Google Ventures’ Kevin Rose on Refresh, Telegram, and Tracking Crypto-Currencies). All of the quality sources I can find simply acknowledge its existence; there's no significant coverage. I'd propose merging to an article about it's creator, Sunny King, a pseudonymous developer of multiple cryptocurrencies, but there's even less coverage of him. Pburka (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's some reasonable coverage on The Register here. I'm beginning to think this might squeeze by on notability. Pburka (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't see any reason to delete. The article looks fine. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it WP:notable? Pburka (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "9th most popular" changes rapidly. For example, Forbes listed it as 5th highest in market cap last month [18]. Its likelihood of overtaking Bitcoin shouldn't be required for "notable" in any case: more notable is the fact that it relies on potentially useful work rather than wasted cycles and electricity for its value. In any case, we don't know whether Bitcoin is going to be the Altavista, Myspace or Napster of cryptocurrencies, or whether it will be the WWW. Wikipedia needn't be in the business of trying to pick a winner -- it's descriptive rather than predictive. (User talk:Scryer) 18:57, 13 Dec 2013 (UTC)
    The only thing that would make Primecoin notable is significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Pburka (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (And please don't cast multiple !votes). Pburka (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't have enough non-trivial independent reliable sources to meet the verification policy. It may merit mentions in larger articles like Bitcoin or cryptocurrency.-Citing (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Besides being the 9th biggest crypto-currency in market-cap, Primecoin also serves to research long Cunningham chains. As you can see on this page, the largest known Cunningham Chain is also the largest known prime number, although it was discovered by the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPS). If GIMPS deserves an article on Wikipedia, then why not Primecoin? After all, Primecoin has already found the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th largest Cunningham Chains even though it is a very new project, with a relatively low network computing power (when compared to Bitcoin or Litecoin). Dalilida (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dalilida, thanks, do you have links proving that it was primecoin to found largest chains? I have other source about primecoin: "A New Digital Currency Concept Solves One Of Bitcoin's Most Obvious Flaws // BusinessInsider, ROB WILE, JUL. 9, 2013."; 9 Alternatives To Bitcoin - business insider, nov 2013. Also mentioned in NYT [19] "Sunny King released a second new currency, Primecoin, that forces miners to find new strings of prime numbers" `a5b (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A5b - The canonical list of Cunningham Chain records: [20]. Scryer (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 06:56, 15 Dec 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As previous poster said - and adding my keep here to answer the question. See the wikipedia article Cunningham_chain#Largest_known_Cunningham_chains - several of the current records were found by Primecoin. I think personally that the major Alt coins get enough media attention in reasonably notable sources, plus the alt coin currency exchanges themselves - lots of data about currency fluctuation etc - I think the main issue is what counts as a notable verifiable source for alt currencies, with over 140 of them surely not all notable enough for wikipedia. But as they don't trade on the normal currency exchanges - and are not tied to any country - what counts as a notable cryptocurrency. But I think the top few by marketcap at least - and ones like Dogecoin that have received considerable media attention in reputable sources - and then for Primecoin - is quite high by marketcap but is notable as "one of a kind" as a cryptocurrency only one doing useful work - and though there may be others in development - I'm thinking of curecoin, this will remain the first such - has established several mathematical records and is first to do useful work of all the cryptocoins. For both reasons this one particularly I think needs to be in wikipedia as well as the other reasons Robert Walker (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to significant differences between Primecoin and the other altcoins. However, this article is clearly not in the best of quality either, and should be redone in some areas. [citation needed] 02:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your username, you're clearly cognizant of the importance of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Which sources do you believe demonstrate the notability of this topic? Pburka (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was created by the author of another notable altcoin, Peercoin. [citation needed] 23:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Pburka (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Pburka and Citing pointed out, we just don't have enough coverage in reliable sources to merit an article yet. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - absolutely notable. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, State some information elsewhere. Some of the reasoning behind keeping this has no basis on the pillars of Wikipedia - are there the reputable sources required to confirm that it is, in fact, notable? Judging by the current sources in the article, I don't see it, and Citing and Pburka and others say the same. If someone wants to make some edits to the article with proper sources they've found, then I might reconsider, but until then it doesn't pass Wikipedia's standards. I do think Primecoin warrants a mention in other related articles, but until it receives the coverage necessary (and I don't think a paragraph in a list of competitors, such as the article posited by A5b gives enough detail to make it notable), then I'll stick with my !vote to delete. GRUcrule (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT - Strong support for proposal to merge/redirect into Cryptocurrency, per Stuartyeates GRUcrule (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable; no reliable sources. I hate to not assume good faith, but all of these cryptocurrency articles with no reliable sources and bunches of editors arguing against deletion because "it is notable/it has a high market cap/it's new and different" makes me wonder whether people are promoting them in order to raise adoption rates (and hence, value) of these cryptocurrencies. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Having said my piece I was going to stop commenting, but since you're imputing a pecuniary motive to me (among others), here it is again: I have no holdings in Bitcoin, Primecoin or any other cryptocurrency, as I stated above. I'm interested in the technology. Let's keep it to the discussion at hand and not get sidetracked on what you conjecture to be the editors' motives. Scryer (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to impugn you, or anyone in particular; I'm just pointing out that one usually doesn't see this many people arguing against an article's deletion because "it's notable" (or similar) without actually finding any reliable sources to back up their assertion. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that Primecoin isn't notable doesn't agree with Wikipedia's guidelines. The Data Center Knowledge article meets the criteria listed in the general notability guideline. If anyone has ulterior motives here, it's probably you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.148.99 (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to one-two sentences in Cryptocurrency#History_of_cryptocurrencies. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now just my 2 cents - I prefer that we keep this page (and some of the other alt coin pages) for now. I realize that WP:NOTNEWS applies, but I think Primecoin (and other prominent alt coins) will become more notable as time goes on. Danski14(talk) 07:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now, as there seems to be more reliable sources now cited on the page than there were at the time of this AfD nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's notable enough to be given a chance and it appears like a good faith effort is being put in to make it a well sourced and well written article. That being said, if Primecoin fails to become/stay widely notable then this should be revisited. Cat-fivetc ---- 18:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is not a single reliable source provided to support anything in the article. Zero independent coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:35, 22 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. It's now several days since the user was blocked, with no indication they'll be back. No prejudice to re-creation by an independent editor. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pheed[edit]

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

PROD was contested. My concern is that this looks like a creation of banned contributors wiki-pr.com: an article on this topic was previously posted by the blocked contributor Tedteeth01 . —rybec 23:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If a block user created it, then it can be speedily deleted. Is there any evidence that it was recreated by Wiki-PR? Otherwise, it looks like it's notable. Forbes and Rolling Stone are pretty solid citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles contributed by people named in the Morning277 SPI have been recreated by editors who make few or no other edits. I reported some of them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 on 22 November but there's been no answer from the sockpuppet investigators, so there's no check-user evidence. I'm asking you to look at the behavioural evidence. The way this article was contributed by Special:Contributions/Social_Mike_Ferlita Social Mike Ferlita fits the pattern: article created in a single edit, then account abandoned. The help request also fits a pattern. Compare to these:

Extended content

[21]

Helping my sandbox

hello Faizan. i am new to Wikipedia and looking to add my article through the sandbox. i am having difficulties with red errors in the reference section. could you guide me through the process. S72013 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[22]

Sandbox Work

Hello... I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure how to use talkback to your page. Sorry!!! I'm trying out this sandbox thing and I need help with references, can you aid me? Bhasinnitish (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[23]

Hey there, I'm working in the sandbox and a bit overwhelmed with my references not working. I could use some assistance? --Wam'tchire (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike. Do you think you could help me out with an article in my sandbox? I'm trying to add this reference but for some reason can't code it in properly. This is the link I want to add: http://personaldemocracy.com/company-reviews-2010/ddc-advocacy

Do you think you could help me out? Ficoman86 (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Orangemike/Archive_24#References_help

Hello Lvivske. I have looked at all your contributions and appreciate the work you have contributed to Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could help me out with the page on my sandbox. Any advice or tips would be helpful, but I was mainly hoping you could help me out with this reference: http://www.justrelaxmagazine.co.uk/#/tee-ashira/4575254751 I was trying to write out the citation so that I could add some more text, but the citation just wouldn't work out for me. Could you help me out? Awaisrahman007 (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

[24]

new page pheed

Hey DMacks, I put some basics down on Pheed, the social networking company and social network. When I created the page I got a little message telling me to let you know I started the page since you deleted it when it was not notable back in 2011. I used a few articles from Forbes and Rolling Stone to get it started. Hope this research helps you guys.

[25]

—rybec 19:02, 30 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 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) 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see where it appears to match some patterns of Wiki-PR accounts, but it also looks to match a whole lot of perfectly innocent editors' activity (in other words, I don't think the connection is obvious enough to carry weight in a deletion discussion. The article certainly passes GNG and doesn't appear to be written like an ad. --— Rhododendrites talk |  03:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On December 18, the account in question along with several others were blocked as suspected sock-puppets of a long-time-banned editor. There was no evidence against the account other than he appeared to be not-completely-new and that he created an article, Pheed, previously created by the banned editor or one of his actual or suspected sock-puppets. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to being re-created by an editor with no credible allegations of being a banned editor or editing on such an editor's behalf, and defer speedy- or AFD-deletion until 7 days after the editor in question was blocked (i.e Christmas Day) to allow reasonable time for the account-holder to appeal his block. In case any editor wishes to rewrite it, I will put the references in the current version on the talk page of this AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:12, 21 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. GB fan 14:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Airlines Flight 2[edit]

Japan Airlines Flight 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete lack of notability, or compliance with guidelines in WP:Aircrash Petebutt (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the fact that the accident was picked up by Peter Greenberg and that it was covered in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2011 ([26]) shows that there is some kind of lasting significance as required to pass WP:EVENT. It's also to be mentioned in the book The Fifth Discipline (but as this book not about aviation and I don't know the extent of its coverage of the accident, I wouldn't use it to make a point). Last but not least, there is this article at airliners.net. (is this considered a reliable source at all?) It indicates that the aircraft was repaired, even though being damaged by salty water, which could be some kind of a unique event, putting more weigh on the significance of the accident. More/better sources should be found, though.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into San_Francisco_International_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents, which appears to be the best destination for this, and likely also List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8 and List of Japan Airlines incidents and accidents, based on my reading of WP:PLANECRASH. I don't think it meets the notability guidelines for a standalone article. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this accident does have lasting significance - the "Asoh defence" came directly from it. Apart from that, a large commercial airliner was significantly damaged at the least. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sven Manguard. No need for a merge, there is already a paragraph at the target article. Crash with no lasting significance, no injuries or deaths. The only reason the article has been mentioned in the news recently is because of its similarity to the much more serious Aviana short-landing earlier this year. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that it was a plane crash with lots of people on board makes it significant. It also happened under similar circumstances as the Asiana crash is interesting, too. Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Not every plane crash (this was not even a crash, more of a water landing) with lots of people on board is significant. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 11 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) 00:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable; by definition, meets the WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." It was not a "routine" accident or news event. It was not heroic like US Airways Flight 1549 where everyone also survived, but was an equally spectacular civil aviation accident involving a commercial airliner carrying over a hundred passengers and crew. It perhaps did not have "lasting" effects (which might also be true of Flight 1549), but any passenger airline accidental landing/crash not on an airport runway always receives extensive attention and becomes notable; this one is eminently suitable for standalone inclusion in the encyclopedia. WP:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents, which seems to be a guideline for articles about airports, aircraft and airlines (not aviation accidents by themselves), is not relevant here. This is not an article about an airport, airline or aircraft; it is an article about a notable aviation accident. DonFB (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:PERSISTENCE with flying colours. The fact that they rescued the aircraft from the water and actually returned it to service is pretty rare, and possibly almost unique in commercial passenger aviation. WP:AIRCRASH is a guideline, and cannot overrule GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:43, 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.
  1. ^ Dahl, Julia. "REPORT: SHOTS FIRED AT ARAPAHOE HS IN CENTENNIAL, COLO". CBS News. Retrieved 13 December 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_December_13&oldid=1142632759"