Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 December	4 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paylogix[edit]

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

Reads like ad, no claim of notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a glorified press release. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a press release. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G11 - author's contribution history suggests paid editing. Also delete the related article Consolidated Billing (which I just changed to a redirect). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I changed it back since you're redirecting to a page that will probably be deleted soon pending this outcome. That article should also be G11'd. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LAX Automated People Mover[edit]

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

Article is written as if this future transit project is definitely happening, when in reality, the project is still in the very early planning stages, making this article a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Very few reliable sources could be found that elaborate on the details of this project. While a transit system at LAX Airport is being planned, a people mover is only one of several proposed options, including a bus rapid transit line and various light rail routings. For now, any details about a future transit system should be in the airport's article only. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it is way too soon to have an article about this proposal, which is still in the talking stages.[1][2] --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori International Pre-School Nepal[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page Montessori International Pre-School Nepal shouldn't be deleted. I'm new to Wikipedia and in the process of collecting more information on this page. Juggie Nepal talk to me 22:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find enough information so that it meets the general guidelines for notability? From reliable, third-party sources? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what—if other editors think this makes more sense, we can add {{notability}} for the time being instead of deleting it. I should have considered that option before. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand this is a definite Delete. Only external link is to its facebook page, no assertion at all of notability. Google finds me nothing notable. Not that it's impossible that it's notable, merely that as it stands there's no notability at all. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pre-school/kindergarten. This is not even a school in the sense of non notable schools that we redirect to their school district or locality. Totally fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hmm, I am not keen on articles coming here 10 minutes after creation but in truth pre-schools are invariably non-notable. I have not been able to stand up sources to meet WP:ORG. Since there are two linked schools there is the possible alternative if these schools are in an educational group of crating a page on the group. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fairly new, small, and now closed. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 9 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 Meerschaum. SarahStierch (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meerschaum Pipes[edit]

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

Promotion-heavy content-fork of the much better Meerschaum. Redirect reverted by creator. WP:CSD G11 declined. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obvious merge to meerschaum. Mangoe (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the much better article Meerschaum, as the properly singular and properly capitalized Meerschaum pipe does. No need for such overlapping articles covering the same topic. I don't see anything in this article that's well enough sourced to be merged to the meerschaum article (the only sources cited are a commercial site, a Wikia page, and a YouTube video). "Greek", indeed! Deor (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a straight redirect. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celebified[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source coverage, listed sources mention the subject only in passing. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't forget the conflict of interest of the article creator. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, link here. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:21, 4 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indo Premier Investment Management[edit]

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

Contested prod, made by RHaworth, by Mark Arsten. I see nothing on this page which indicates notability. Laun chba ller 20:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've found some source coverage: [3], [4], and I assume there may be some more with the large amount of google results. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reliable coverage shown above. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:12, 6 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're concerned about this article being deleted, please bring it up at deletion review. SarahStierch (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rakin Anan Chowdhury[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, promotional biography of an apparently non-notable director. The sources used in the article are unreliable and I am unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject. - Mr X 20:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zahidul009 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)With due respect, WIKIPEDIA is a non profit organization.And this page is not for promotion.We made this page with the heart's content.So,please think at least once about the work we've done every day to enrich WIKIPEDIA.I think the complainer should think about our hard work.Thank you allZahidul009 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This young man has not yet received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and therefore is not notable at this time. Yes, the article has an indisputably promotional tone, but that could be corrected if he was notable. But he isn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional and not notable. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Bad,can be kept -And this page is not for promotion.We made this page with the heart's content.So,please think at least once about the work we've done every day to enrich WIKIPEDIA.We can edit it to be more reliable.Thanks Zahidul009 (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)contribs) 21:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the effort you have put in to creating content on Wikipedia. Unfortunately though, content HAS to be notable to be included on this website. If this wasn't the case then the site would fill up with pages and pages on nothing important. If you can prove that the subject of this article is notable then it can be kept. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article,Should be kept - It seems to me,The creator of this article corrected many errors and now it is quite reliable.References and links prove that the person featuring this article has some reputation.In Bangladesh, the film mentioned in this article has become famous.And definitely the producer of that film mentioned in the article, truly deserve a page in WIKIPEDIA. I hope all the respected users and members will consider this page and cancel the deleting process.Thank you all.Tanjeena (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Hello Tanjeena. Please point to the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I just don't see it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I suspect that Tanjeena may be a sockpuppet of Zahidul and have requested clarification here. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been confirmed at the link above, Tanjeena has been confirmed as a sockpuppet account of Zahidul009. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 5 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 Paul Walker#Death. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Paul Walker[edit]

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

Sad but non notable yet. Too soon. Beerest 2 talk 20:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge with~~ Redirect toPaul Walker. I wouldn't say this isn't notable (half the internet erupted when the news first broke), but half the article reads like a basic biography and the rest is nothing new. It could easily be condensed to a paragraph or two in the main article. KonveyorBelt 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paul Walker - I see nothing to merge as of now as Walker's article already contains a Death section. This might reasonably pass WP:NEVENT in the future, so the redirect could be undone. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul Walker per WP:NOTNEWS. If this had been a regular Joe instead of Paul Walker, this incident would never have made the news outside his home town. No reason to have a separate article. --- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor argument on the grounds that the person was already notable before and after the incident, whereas a regular Joe was unremarkable in the rest of his life. KonveyorBelt 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - No need for a new article. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul Walker or delete. This is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ (Changing my opinion to Delete, see below) since there is already an article about Paul Walker and this obviously belongs there; it's not a separate issue, it's central to that article. Is it possible to merge the information but not leave a redirect? This seems like a very unlikely search term; people are far more likely to simply search for Paul Walker. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Delete. There is no need to merge any of this information; it is already present in great detail at the Paul Walker article, and this article contributes nothing new. --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This is an episode in a biography and as a free-standing piece is a needless fork. Carrite (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While tragic, there's nothing extraordinary or notable about the incident that can not be covered in a paragraph or two at Paul Walker; if all you can say is "he died, and here's how", that isn't worthy of a spinoff article. The amount of media covering it in today's 24/7 saturated news market is not an indicator of standalone notability. If there was something unusual or extraordinary here that saw sustained coverage over a long period of time, e.g. Death of Michael Jackson, then an article could be justified. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Walker's death is not notable independent of Walker. No need to merge, as the information in the main article is a superset of the information here. Lagrange 613 18:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Blanchardb and Lagrange613. There doesn't seem to be anything to merge. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, with a brief check to make sure all the sources here are in the main article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul Walker#Death where most of this information is already included. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul Walker#Death Pointless creation about the accidental, non-controversial, death of a minor celebrity. Snow close this and lets go build an encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 04:36, 10 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Communist Revolution[edit]

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

1) WP:CONTENTFORK, that is, Chinese Civil War#Immediate post-war clashes (1945–1946) and Chinese Civil War#Resumed fighting (1946–1950) are more detailed, plus they have sources 2) NPOV issues 3) WP:STUB ch (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not WP:CONTENTFORK, rather it is WP:SPINOFF. The article Chinese Communist Revolution is linked to from Chinese Civil War and the former is supposed to be a sub-article of the latter covering the second part of the civil war. The article Chinese Civil War contains only summary information of this subject which should be expanded upon. Poor quality content is not a reason for deletion of an article. Rather the article should be improved to meat the required standards. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it generally unfathomable that this topic would not deserve its own article. Just becase a topic can be thought of as a part of another topic doesn't mean it can't have its own article. There is plenty of overlap of this kind on wikipedia and it is a very good thing. There's plenty of bad content on wikipedia's china related articles, be bold by deleting clearly bogus content, not the articles. (not to suggest there aren't also plenty of bogus articles). WP:AQU, I've made this kind of mistake myself. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 15:41, 7 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. Keeping this one, feel free to renominate if needed - but please start improving instead of nominating first :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Carter[edit]

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

Current sources do not appear to demonstrate notability. Mostly IDMB, broken links, blogs, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 03:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to really show that she's particularly noteworthy. Despite the article's assertions that she's Totally Notable, I can't find much of anything that actually talks about her. She has supposedly worked with notable people, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by that factor and we'd need some coverage that actually focuses on her. All I could really find is this rather negative news story. That it's negative doesn't mean that someone can't be notable, but the problem here is that this was the best source I could find. From what I can see from related articles, it looks like there's a definite COI (as there's a contributor called User:Releveent, named after her company). I'd actually recommend speedying this as sheer promo. I'll tag it as such, although someone might be misled by the claims on the article and assume that there's more notability here than there actually is. I only found one possible assertion to notability, an award for a film she produced. However since that's her only claim to notability that looks to have any sort of sources, we could always just redirect to the film itself. As far as the other claims of producing or having a hand in other things, I can't find any true coverage of any of this. The thing to remember is that projects tend to have many, many producers and people working on it. Having a hand in something that was completed doesn't always equate to notability for that person- we have to have coverage that focuses on the individual, which we don't have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: It does seem as if Ms Carter won a shared Black Reel Awards for A Beautiful Soul,[5] hinting that coverage is available even if not used. Perhaps we might look beyond this article's poor formatting and style and see just how it might be improved to serve the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only a non-notable individual, but seems pretty clear from the non-existent sources that this is just another vanity page. Rockypedia (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... to be quite fair, In actually looking it is found that this person is considered notable enough in her field to be quoted by media in such as Entertainment Weekly [6] nd Southern Illinoisan [7] and her work as a producer has caught the attention of numerous reliable sources, and she HAS received the recognition of her peers. Even without sources detailing the minutiae of her life, it could be seen that she meets the intent of WP:CREATIVE#3. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
  - Well, to be even more fair, and brutally honest, Michael Q. Schmidt, after a quick random perusal of your opinions on deletions, it appears that you weigh in only on (1) films and (2) people that want to be recognized as actors, and every opinion I've seen is either a keep or a comment that attempts to persuade everyone of the subject's notability, and it's difficult to take any of them all that seriously when seen in that context - that is, that you are pretty much 100% in favor of keeping every article about a film or actor that appears on Wikipedia. I don't know what your motivation is, I don't know if it's related to your own film career, but I guess it doesn't matter - how can the rest of us look at your opinion as an objective one when it breaks only one way, every time, seemingly regardless of actual notability? Rockypedia (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rockypedia... WP:ADHOM arguments are never helpful to discussion. Had you investigated further, you might have learned that I am a coordinator over at WikiProject Film, meaning my wishing to support and actually improve articles related to films and actors so as to better serve this encyclopedia is understandable. Worse, your statement that I opt to keep 100% of all film and actor articles is quite provably a false personal attack which I dislike even further. I opt for delete of such fully 50% of the time, and my policy and guideline based opinions are proven more often right than wrong. I understand and have written about WP:COI. So further research might have allowed you to find that I avoid articles related to myself or my film career. So before your false accusation of my having a COI escalates, I invite you apologize for any implication that my "motivation" is anything other than a wish to improve the project, and strikethrough your spurious personal attack. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah there Rocky. Please don't make any assumptions about Schmidt just because he happens to like editing predominantly film related articles. There is no rule that says that someone has to edit or weigh in on anything other than what they are most interested in. I can personally vouch for Schmidt's character here on Wikipedia. He's more of an inclusionist than I am, but he wouldn't argue for a keep without at least some reasonable basis for the subject's inclusion and when he can't make an argument, he does argue for deletion or incubation. I don't always agree with him, but his arguments are always based upon policy. Schmidt does not argue for inclusion based upon any conflict of interest other than wanting to improve Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 20 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) 01:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, too, must speak in defense of MichaelQSchmidt here. I occasionally edit film-related articles and biographies, and I can't think of another active editor here whose judgement I trust in this topic area more than this one. He knows Hollywood very well, and has the skill and experience to evaluate the reliability of the sources. I don't agree with any editor here 100% of the time, but Michael's contributions here are valuable and impeccable. He is never far off base. It is fine to disagree, but a personal attack cloaked as being "brutally honest" is really "brutally unfair" in this case. I, too, encourage an apology. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article is salvageable and will finally have some time Monday afternoon (PST)(12-3-2013) to address issues and show notability under WP:GNG. If deleted before I get to it, I request userfication to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Holly Davis Carter with leave to return to mainspace when fixed up. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:32, 2 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep - she looks as if she's on the borderline of notability which just means she needs a good write-up. Michael, you think you can do it? Neonchameleon (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do... but I have been immersed in real-world projects. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Napoli (Cigarettes)[edit]

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

Non-notable cigarette brand. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google returns no reliable sources. Seems to be a non-notable brand. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any reliable source coverage. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched and couldn't find any reliable sources for the brand. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:COI article on a product with no reliable references quoted or found to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:14, 4 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 Glossary of motorsport terms#D. reasonable for a redirect JodyB_talk 19:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did Not Start[edit]

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

Per WP:DICDEF. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It just explains an acronym of which is made an extensive use in racing and motorsport, just like Did Not Finish. --Lucaxvi (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page simply defines an acronym and does not have any references. If the page were to have some sources to back it up maybe it would be worth keeping. Meatsgains (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of motorsport terms#D or delete. Admittedly, did not start is a difficult term to search for, as it is a common phrase. But I was unable to find more than dictionary definitions. It is a reasonable search term, so a redirect to Glossary of motorsport terms#D (where the term is already present) seems warranted. One objection to that may be that the term is used in other forms of racing, too, but it would at least give readers a definition and the associated DNS acronym. --Mark viking (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Mark viking - plausible search term but too narrow of a definition to constitute an article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:45, 4 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 a problem with this deletion please take it to deletion review. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suvodeep chatterjee[edit]

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

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

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

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

Some guy who made a painting with his mouth. Two websites are cited, which both contain roughly the same info and can not be regarded as intellectually independent of each other. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He may be notable if he really did set a world record, but the cited websites are of questionable reliability. Perhaps if someone with access to Indian sources can find a couple of newspaper articles, this bio could be saved. - Mr X 19:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Agree with MrX. jni (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be Deleted He is really a world record holder and world record india and Record holder republic is a registered organization.World record holders are the pride of a country,who should be supported with respect, prosperity and honor by every country and every citizen as well.- user: Jeetbnr —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Registered where? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable RHR india is Registered with RHR UK and book af alternative record UK,and Mr: Dean Gould is the president,So he is a valid World record holder...and he is a well known artist also,his group show comes in last month news paper also. http://bangla.ganashakti.co.in/shownews.php?w=1687&h=660&year=2013&month=11&date=17&page=22&dpn=337343 (?) —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think now this discussion should be closed.His all the external links proving the notability of his own.And one artist who comes in news paper for his show and world records,he should be notable for wiki and his details should not be delete. (?) —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after considering all the articles links.world records links,samsung winning link,news paper links..which proved he is notable. ( Jeetbnr (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC) )[reply]
Keep I've added news paper article and more details.A million hits on Google are not required to establish notability. The article is reliably sourced. Every article in the living persons category [10] is about people notable in their respective fields. This article has enough sources for a stub. However, a request for more sources can be made, deleting the article doesn't look particularly constructive ( Jeetbnr (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC) )[reply]
As I mentioned on your talk page, adding multiple comments with keep in the front of them and repeating the same arguments are not likely to influence the outcome of this discussion. If fact, it seems a bit WP:DISRUPTIVE. - Mr X 13:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the source is genuine and a world record holders always stay under notable tag ( Suvo11 (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

Keep he is one of the pride of west bengal,His page should keep.,if he is non notable then thousand of pages in wiki is non notable.,even those pages dont have reliable sources.and all the references are genuine and he having 3 world records in art field.

( Souvik wb (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) ) — Souvik wb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article is entirely re-written to show notability. Possibly with a side of wp:NUKEANDPAVE if there is notability. On the rest of the comments the statement that "world record holders always stay under notable tag" is strictly false under wp:BIO as that's a case of being notable for one event. That Jeetbnr appears to be spamming this page with requests to keep, and unless I am very much mistaken [Souvik_wb] and [Suvo11] appear to have only contributed to this thread in their entire time at Wikipedia to date is ... problematic. Even more problematic is that again, unless I have misread the tools (and my unreserved apologies if I have), [this page was created by Jeetnbr and all their contributions to Wikipedia to date have been around the page in question]. I therefore suspect wp:SOCK and am reporting appropriately. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or I would open an investigation if there wasn't already one open Neonchameleon (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the sockpuppets have been now blocked. Closing admin, please discount the multiple "keeps" from socks. jni (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notable criteria

1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7] 3.Creative professionals,The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition

all those mentioned pointed achieved by Suvodeep Chatterjee....according wikipedia notable clause everything is all right... Jeetbnr (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC) — Jeetbnr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - summing up In addition to the nominator, there have been four people taking part in this discussion so far. In chronological order: Mr, jni, user: Jeetbnr, and myself. Three of us have voted for deletion, with only Jeetbnr voting to keep the article. Every single one of the seven votes for keep (or "do not delete") on this page has been cast either by Jeetbnr when he was logged in (whether or not he signed his name to his votes to keep) or by sockpuppets of user: Jeetbnr which have subsequently been banned and for which he received a two day suspension from Wikipedia. In addition, a quick look at his contributions shows Jeetbnr to be a single purpose account on the subject of this page; as of now his only contributions are to the page on Suvodeep Chatterjee, the talk page there, to request undeletion of that page, and to this discussion. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in addition to delete,people have to gives proper reason,and in terms of WIKIPEDIA notable clause,and condition i have proved that this article which i have written is correct..if any one having any problem,he can give proper reason..and wikipedia is independent,and i can work with any page,its Suvodeep chatterjee or any one else.its my own rights...this page is up for to give proper points regarding delete or keep.nothing else.According to Mr comment - "He may be notable if he really did set a world" record,and i proved that he set 3 world record..so i believe admin will read my each point and he will get the perfect logic..thank you all.. Jeetbnr (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)— Jeetbnr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No, you have not proven that he set three world records, or even one. The world record for largest painting by mouth was set in 2007 by R.Rajendran [8]. MiraclesWorldRecords.com is not reliable. For one thing, they have only existed for a little over a year. They also hide their identity, an obvious concern when evaluating source reliability. rhrindianrecords.co.in was created in 2008, is is not much better. Notice how they obscure their address and phone number. worldrecordsindia.com is was created in 2011 and is owned by Target SEO. Perhaps Suvodeep Chatterjee really has set a world record, but unfortunately it does not seem that a reliable source has taken note of it. Wikipedia is independent, but privately owned. It's not a publishing platform like wordpress.org. It is an encyclopedia and only notable subjects can be included. - Mr X 17:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I'm persuaded by the arguments that WP:BLP1E applies to this article. The legitimate concerns raised over both off-site canvassing (most – but not all – of the editors active on Wikipediocracy support deletion) and apparently double- or triple-"voting" (3 of the "keep" editors appear to have very similar IP addresses, and few edits to anything else) mean that we have to be especially careful about relying on "head counts", and instead focus on the weight of the argument. Countering BLP1E (and WP:BLP concerns in general) are arguments that the subject meets WP:GNG, but as the introduction to that guideline states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The reliable sources present in the article and mentioned by those opposing deletion do create an assumption of notability, but this deletion discussion, has, from my reading of it, concluded that this subject does not merit a stand-alone article. I'm therefore convinced that deletion is compatible with both WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. 28bytes (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Earl[edit]

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

One big pile of pure, steaming BLP violation. This is a guy whose alleged notability stems from being arrested a fair few times. But let's deconstruct this. "The Smoking Gun" - clearly a tabloid news source. The source from the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division of Community Corrections is clearly primary and local. WBKO may or may not be reliable; that I'm not sure about. Google turns up a few things in reliable sources, but they're literally just "he got arrested again". I'm really not seeing how this is encyclopedic, and how it is anything other than a BLP violation - it's literally just a coatrack for "OMG THIS GUY IS BAD". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable for one thing only -- number of trivial arrests. We do not consider every Guinness recordholder to be "notable" so this person is not "notable." Lastly -- is there any remote likelihood that readers would find this to be of encyclopedic interest? I rather think not. Collect (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable sources used and seems to go against the BLP policies as articulated by the nom. Bad sourcing, likely policy violations, and no real encyclopedia value. Delete. Intothat darkness 16:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless he's the man most arrested ever I see no notability and a BLP violation Neonchameleon (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if he is? 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, merely a BLP pretending that a massive sequence of trivial arrests is in some way notable. See WP:NOTNEWS, which each and every one of these incidents would fail miserably. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These trivial arrests lumped up together spell GNG. Of course we are not GBWR, but that does not stop us from being able to write about record-breakers. He is notable, and that's that. A bloke who spent years at the airport got his own page. So did a Japanese soldier who spent years in a cave after WWII ended. 218.186.192.190 (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and look, he even has his own Guinness World Records entry. Teehee 218.186.192.190 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're fully entitled to "write about record breakers" and I'm fully entitled to express my belief that merely being arrested multiple times is a not a sufficient basis for an encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about also being mentioned in one whole song, coupled with appearances on talk shows as well as contemporary paintings? 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should be considered a straight-up WP:BLP1E, with the "one event" being the arrests in totality. Each arrest is itself trivial and mundane, not a separate or notable "event" in terms of establishing notability. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Few deserve the ignominy bestowed upon this article's subject. →Stani Stani 17:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why this was proposed. Passes GNG easily. Look at this coverage: [9] [10] and [11] [12] [13] You can't literally just throw all these substantial sources away and cry "BLP" when the subject is notable. He can't be a one event because the sources are all spread across diferent periods. A ridiculous AFD. Beerest 2 talk 19:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The individual arrests are themselves not notable...weapons possession, public intoxication, and so on. The notability is entirely derived from the overall arrest tally (1500+) over 4 decades. If a person is notable for only one thing, and would otherwise be an unknown individual, then WP:BLP1E takes effect. Barring unusual/extraordinary circumstances, pointing to multiple reliable sources is not a sufficient counter-argument to BLP1E. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am arguing against BLP1E. Let's see what it says: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. No, because he isn't getting coverage just for one arrest - he gets coverage for lots of them. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. He is not a low-profile individual, and there is no event article. It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Again, there is no event article. The events are not notable; a person involved in them can be. Which part of BLP1E does he meet? Beerest 2 talk 20:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't argue here against BLP1E its policy. Go and argue to change it elsewhere (good luck with that). John lilburne (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attempting to argue against the purpose of BLP1E. I'm attempting to argue against whether Earl himself meets 1E. Beerest 2 talk 02:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "he gets coverage for lots of them", yes, that is true. But this person doesn't have 1,500 points of notability, he has one; the overall phenomenon, oddity, or whatever you want to call it of being a person arrested 1,500 times. Trying to cash in on one's 15 minutes of fame does not overcome the "low-profile individual" criteria either. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying and I can't say I really agree with it. I think that since the coverage is spread out over a few years and it isn't just regurgitating the same thing, then it's not really one event. Beerest 2 talk 02:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - be human, otherwise known as pr WP:BLP1E, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on here. We have articles on living criminals who are notable for things that no human would like to be notable for. Beerest 2 talk 21:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?? For "public intoxication, with charges of disorderly conduct, third degree trespassing, second degree trespassing, and apparently one count of begging"? Like hell, no. We are not talking about a mass-murderer here, this is no Charles Manson or Anders Behring Breivik. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's made a minor celebrity of himself, so I doubt he even cares. He appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live! to talk about his arrests. This is a silly AfD, people scream BLP but don't bother to fix it. He's controversial yes, but there are sources out there. Beerest 2 talk 21:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what if he appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live!? Do you always have to serve alcohol to an alcoholic? Huldra (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying. People do bad things, we can't just ignore them to play nice. If the article was "Henry Earl is a true moron who has been arrested so many times that it makes my head spin" then it would be a BLP violation, but it wouldn't violate BLP if sources were followed. Beerest 2 talk 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, this is not a case of throwing WP-rules at one another, this is about "being human". Quite simply. And to me it does not sound as if he has done seriously "bad stuff"; more like very stupid/silly stuff. Have some mercy and leave him alone. Huldra (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication that he's a latter day Mr Bojangles, or Ira Hayes? John lilburne (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the overall sentiment of "be human", something that is all too lacking in this project at times, you really need to beef it up with a policy/guide-based argument, otherwise this entry will likely be discarded when closing time comes. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How the heck is this 1E? It's 1267E, if you will. Being notable does not mean that you have to be a conventional celebrity. Earl is a celebrity in his own rights. We see that much of enduring coverage, stretching from when he was first arrested to now. There are plenty more sources out there that are not in use here. Surely GNG has been met. I'd go on to suggest that some kind soul should create an article titled List of people arrested the most times, or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.192.190 (talk)
Habitual drunk that lives in doorways, is habitually drunk and lives doorways when not in the county jail. Damn that is sure some prime time information, to preserve for posterity. John lilburne (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree more. 218.186.192.190 (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with all the reasoning presented thus far about the non-notability of this individual. — Scott • talk 16:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~ To review the nomination it appears that the issues are a lack of sources, a notability issue, and a violation of WP:COATRACK. For the issue of sources, I have already cited CNN, Daily Mail, and the Huffington Post in the article, in addition to other sources, including the New York Post and ABC News, that I didn't include. For the issue of notability, I think that being arrested over a thousand times is a rare, if not unique, thing for a person, especially for what seems to be intentional purposes. Not to mention his web presence due to the images of his numerous arrests that he has had over the years. WP:WHYN, which states the reasons for the notability guidelines, is confirmed at each level in the current article, especially on independent sources. As for the issue of WP:COATRACK, I believe that WP:WINAC should help the matter. Simply put, the multiple arrests are Mr. Earl's claim of his notability as no person has been known to be arrested over a thousand times. Why it isn't WP:BLP1E could be noted for the fact that this isn't a single event, as BLP1E requires, but a series of events that have led to the present time. In addition, the focus of the events has also been on his internet fame from those arrests, not just from his overall arrests. Finally, I would like to note that The Smoking Gun is a part of the Turner Broadcasting System and appears to be a reliable source for this topic, not to mention that it still complies with WP:WHYN as a 'single' source with CNN. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that you cited The Daily Mail as a source shows that you have absolutely no idea what a reliable source is, and that your judgement of The Smoking Gun is therefore completely unreliable as well. TSG is pretty obviously a tabloid and not a reliable source for anything whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you and a few other on Wikipediocracy seem to have a problem with my comment, I can expand it. Yes, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, but is there a blacklist on tabloids from being citations? WP:BLACKLIST only covers spam, which the Daily Mail isn't. So, Lukeno94, can you give me an example on Wikipedia where we removed a citation by the Daily Mail for being a tabloid or an AfD where an article was seriously considered for deletion due to having a citation from the Daily Mail? If so, I can check to see if the ABC source can be used in conjunction with the Daily Mail citation. For the Turner Broadcasting System comment, my point was that for the purposes of WP:WHYN, CNN and TSG are considered the same source, but my opinion still complies with it in relation to other sources. In other words, even with them being the same source, there are still enough reliable sources other than CNN+TSG to apply to the article. To add on to this, a website that focuses on a specific topic can be a reliable source for that topic. That was my point on why TSG can be a reliable source for this article. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is never accepted in an AfD debate as a reliable source that contributes to notability. And the owners of a newspaper are irrelevant anyway; The Sun (United Kingdom) are owned by the same people who own The Times; The Sun is most definitely not a reliable source, and The Times is usually a reliable source. Nor does something focusing on a particular topic make it a reliable source for said topic; that is an absolutely ludicrous statement. A fan blog focusing on a band is not a reliable source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically, it's one long event - an accumulation of arrests over time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject was already a celebrity back in 2004 - see Newsweek and Internet love the man who loves.... Back then Wikipedia was just getting going and Facebook was being launched. The fact that he's back in the news yet again tells us that this is quite the opposite of BLP1E which therefore does not apply. To object to the article because the subject is a street person seems to be blatant censorship, like saying "we don't want your sort in here". Such street people may become quite famous and we naturally then have articles about them - see Emperor Norton, Stanley Green and Soho Pam, for example. If the current draft for this page seems deficient then this is just a matter of ordinary editing. It is our editing policy to improve such topics, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the one event is the reportage of the large number of offences. The subject doesn't meet the requirements of WP:PERPETRATOR. The coverage is not about the crimes more than the actual person. Per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, this is creating a victim out of a low level, unremarkable criminal. Hack (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just about everything said in this !vote is contradictory, false or illogical. Reportage is not an event and one is not a large number. WP:PERPETRATOR and WP:AVOIDVICTIM are opposites as the first concerns the criminal while the latter concerns the victims of crime. WP:PERPETRATOR specifically looks for "sustained coverage of the event ... [which] ... devotes significant attention to the individual's role" and that's what we have here. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is not even wrong - it is bizarrely inappropriate - a blatant WP:VAGUEWAVE. Warden (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Having made the landing page at CNN, it's hard to argue against WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E, as to which the "notability" is for (the one event of being one of the most arrested people) is a valid argument; as is the fact that most coverage is as routine as a football match report, regardless of who is carrying it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for multiple events, coverage along years and years: thus it passes WP:BLP1E. I don't like the article, it is quite a sad thing indeed: but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument to remove information from the encyclopedia, even if a few above seem to disagree. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To those citing BLP1E, that is not applicable here. He would be notable for one thing, not for one event. In fact, I would say he is not really notable for being arrested a lot of times, but rather for becoming an internet celebrity because of it. Right now the article focuses entirely on him having been arrested a bunch of times and does not really discuss the more noteworthy aspect of him becoming a minor Internet celebrity. Several sources note that he is popular because people actually kind of admire his vagrant lifestyle and general oddities. This oversight would seem to be a big reason why the article comes off as demeaning. An article on this individual should be less about the arrests and more about the online fame.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of these individual events are remotely close to making the subject notable. The one event is the reporting of the large number of offences. Hack (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "online fame" is because of the multiple arrests, you cannot separate one from the other, that's just...bizarre. It's like saying a musician isn't notable for the music he puts out, but rather the sources who discuss him. Well, why are they talking about him? The music. Tarc (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly bizarre to suggest a man otherwise of no consequence with a long line of trivial misdemeanors becoming an Internet icon because of it makes him significant rather than being a man otherwise of no consequence with a long line of trivial misdemeanors. To use your analogy, it would be like a locally popular band becoming a break-out viral hit and sources detailing what it means for such a band to have gone viral or the way the band went viral. Would the source of their notability really be the music or more how they used the Internet to spread their music? Such an argument is not nearly as bizarre as claiming multiple events are really just one event. I suppose in a broad philosophical sense each of our lives is individually but a single event and thus, per WP:BLP1E no articles should exist on any person since that person would only be notable for the singular event of his or her very existence on this planet. Of course, that sort of reasoning is ridiculous and totally goes against the meaning of the policy.

BLP1E is about people who are minor figures in a single news story. Someone who has been the subject of multiple national or international news stories over the course of a decade because of a unique interest in that individual is very much not where BLP1E is meant to apply. We do not have any policies that specifically cover this type of situation, as far as I know, so we would typically go by GNG and he meets that measure. The only objection you could raise that would have potential standing is some sort of "ignore all rules" deletion where you essentially argue that such an article is against the purpose of Wikipedia for some substantive reason not covered by existing policy. I would say that ethical considerations for deletion are probably not that credible as the subject seems to enjoy the national attention he gets, which is what one would expect since it is pretty much the only thing he has got going for him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing Please note that the nomination and following !votes seem to have been canvassed offsite at Wikipediocracy. The thread there is quite partisan with collusive comments such as "If you AfD it, I'll support you." The original idea seems to have been to attack Jimmy Wales, "When Jimmy Wales begs...". None of the participants there seem to have openly declared their interest here and so their posing as independent Wikipedians seems improper per WP:MEAT. Warden (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link 218.186.195.204 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're quoting me there, I shall reply. "Posing as independent Wikipedians" is quite possibly the dimmest thing I've read in a Wikipedia discussion all year. "Partisan"? "Collusive"? Because there happens to be agreement that an article is a nasty piece of garbage? Please excuse me for a moment while I clamp my eyeballs to stop them rolling back in their sockets. You appear to be suffering from the delusion that it's forbidden for Wikipedia editors to talk about the content of Wikipedia outside Wikipedia. You need to shake that off, pronto. It also appears that you have no idea what a conflict of interest is. — Scott • talk 12:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, your statement is patent bollocks. I, and I alone, was the person who mentioned that I'd AfD it, but wasn't 100% sure about doing so because of the fact that I expected a lot of votes where people left their decency and brains at the door. The article is a pure BLP violation, nothing more, nothing less. It seeks to demonize a human being just for being arrested rather often; and even if it focused on his alleged "internet celebrity", it would still be there to demonize him. And, given that 99% of the coverage is routine "OMG HE GOT ARRESTED AGAIN LETS REPORT THIS", and nothing else, GNG isn't definitely met anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that it is about demonizing him is not really based on anything. He has been arrested a lot. Some people may find that hilarious and others may find it kind of cool. A person may even have found him to be a sympathetic figure. Try not to let your own preconceptions or the preconceptions of others cloud your thinking.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warden statement may be poorly worded, and off-wiki discussion between editors are nothing odd: but more transparency of off-wiki discussions would be welcome. I came to know the AfD through WO as well, by the way. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)--cyclopia ^speak! 13:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly specious and rather pathetic effort by the illustrious Colonel to save an unworthy article by creation of a bogeyman. Administrator Hex's comment on WPO is taken out of context and represented as something it is not. This is a shitty article that needs to be flushed. Merely sharing that opinion off site (or here on site) is not "canvassing." Ridiculous. Carrite (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, AfD is not the janitors' association. 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Warden. 218.186.195.204 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The one event can't be the amount of arrests. He received coverage for loads of other arrests. Just because the topic is controversial doesn't mean we should throw it in the trash. If he was notable for having the most amount of soda cans, and he received coverage as he collected them, nobody would be advocating deletion. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have bought the argument for WP:BLP1E if this CNN & Huffington Post was really the only event. However, the article has existed since 2005 which shows a prolong record of notability with multiple events. Newsweek had an article about him dating back to February 25 2004. Per WP:GNG - reliable, multiple secondary sources, significant coverage, and most importantly multiple, separately reported events over the course of over a decade - it is not just one event. --CyberXRef^talk 13:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being a "record-holder" is not given in the GNG as sufficient basis for notability. Guinness lists many thousands of "record-holders" almost none of whom are notable enough for Wikipedia. Including people with huge collections of single items, etc. That particular argument should be deprecated as unfounded in Wikipedia policy by anyone closing tis AfD. I would, moreover, suggest that WP:BLP in general argues against this article as making contentious claims about a person which may be harmful to that person ... and since "largest soda can collection" is known, and the owner is not notable, that should put that particular argument well to rest. Collect (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG. Articles with CNN, Huffpo and Newsweek are good enough for me. The Steve 14:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Ripberger (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:DECENCY. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is DECENCY? 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's basically WP:BLP1E with the same 'event' being just a repeated history of allegations. Per nom, it's one big BLP violation. "Most arrested"? Who cares - Alison ^❤ 23:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the WP:BLP violating crock of shite it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A BLP violation needs cleanup, not deletion, if it is notable. 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep~~ All you idiots who cite 1E, get lost and go sober up. Isn't it made clear in the well-referenced article that Earl is more notable than being just a guy who got arrested one time too many? We see one full song being devoted to Earl. T-shorts, oil paintings, etc. People may say that HuffPost is not reliable... Then what about Newsweek and the rest? Sure, I opine that the article needs some cleanup, but AfD is definitely not the venue for that. 218.186.192.195 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Singapore IP 218.XX — Your nastiness aside, Wikipedia is not the True Crime Register. A person that was divorced 12 times or who had 15,000 parking tickets wouldn't be encyclopedia-worthy either. This subject needs to be cleaned up by being cleaned out. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's another single purpose editor Singapore IP 218.XX voting exactly as you do above. Maybe the two of you can get together and have tea. Carrite (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, golly, I missed the fact that there is another single purpose editor Singapore IP 218.XX voting exactly as you do near the top. Maybe the three of you can get together and go out to dinner. I hear the duck is excellent. Quack. Quack. Quack. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The closing administrator should be sure to toss the votes of all three Singapore IPs for vote fraud. Maybe as a defender of the integrity of AfD debates Colonel Warden would care to reinforce this opinion by making a statement to us about the duplicitous nature of sockpuppetry... Carrite (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP issues, and medical privacy issues, but possibly consider undeletion after his inevitable death (we all are headed towards one (what a jolly thought)). Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:30, 9 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. postdlf (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quark (cryptocurrency)[edit]

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

One mention in The Guardian and some chit-chat on a BitCoin forum is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only reliable source coverage is in a list along with a bunch of other cryptocurrencies, not notable. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not referring to the chit-chat, I'm referring to the top post.

In case you've not been into altcoins, you'll see that most of them don't have a website. They all start in the altcoin subfourm. All their announcement is made via the top post. It's updated regularly to reflect changes by the coin developers.

The existence, price etc... of the coin can be proved from the (popular) exchanges. I'll try to get the specifications in the main website, or at least it'll refer to the thread. I hope it'll be enough. DE logics (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just for context: I PRODded it, and Clarkcj12 has shunted my PROD reason into the AfD. I can't find multiple reliable sources: the Guardian is a reliable source, but we need multiple reliable sources. Bitcointalk is not a reliable source. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I am sorry, about that. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case I'd like to repeat what I said before in the Quark talk page, please respond to all of them before any more prods. --

The exchanges in which they're listed are very popular. See their ranking. You can also see http://coinmarketcap.com, this's also a popular website.

I hope you don't reject RFC references for the same reason. Is it that news articles is the only thing you can refer to? That way most technical (especially math) articles must be wiped from wiki.

Now it's even supported by https://coinpayments.net DE logics (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines don't give any weight to coinpayments.net or coinmarketcap.com or BitCoin exchanges. You got any reliable sources? —Tom Morris (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/04/idUSnHUGdqhp+70+ONE20131204, http://www.freitag.de/autoren/the-babyshambler/beenden-wir-die-macht-der-banken? DE logics (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are reliable sources. The Reuters link is actually a press release. The freitag.de link is to a community blog section content written by a pseudoynmous user called The Babyshambler—no editorial oversight means this is a questionable source. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form""

"Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

Cryptsy -- rank 20,878

bter.com -- rank 35,500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DE logics (talk • contribs) 09:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does Alexa rank convey "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? YouTube is number three on Alexa but that doesn't mean it's a reliable source. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking forwards towards the existence of the coin, then this coin is traded in the highest volumes in these exchanges which hundreds and thousands of people trust; cause of the trading platform's popularity, it's accuracy and fact-checking (or details the price of the cryptocurrency) is proved.

Unlike Youtube, this does not show any opinion by people; this's showing facts -- the current price of the coin and it proves it's existence.

If Wikipedia does not accept these sites are reliable source, then why is tools.ietf.org taken as a reliable source? Or in that case, any University or news website? If the website does not have sufficient negative reviews by people over the Internet, it's well suited to be a source. Cause 'accuracy' and 'fact-checking' is determined by what people think about the credibility of the website. DE logics (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another non-notable cryptocurrency, meaningless references, article consists mostly of hype and a few links to exchanges to help drive the bubble. Smite-Meister (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why I should not accuse you of owning a lot of pre-mined Bitcoins (and possibly expensive mining hardware) and trying to pump Bitcoin prices by provoking people to sell the alts to buy bits?

Your arguments are pretty much useless in context of this article anyway.

DE logics (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is a Wikipedia policy. I have all of about $5 USD in Bitcoin. Can you provide some reliable sources? —Tom Morris (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually saying this to me, instead of Smite-Meister. Any particular reason? DE logics (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search reveals forum posts and blogs, and incidental mentions in a few reliable sources, but no significant RS coverage, needed to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This being discussed above.

Ok, but I got more sources.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/explosion-of-bitcoin-clones-2013-12, http://www.eweek.com/cloud/slideshows/bitcoin-has-company-on-cryptocurrency-stage.html/, http://actualidad.rt.com/economia/view/113241-alternativas-bitcoin-monedas, http://www.internethaber.com/bu-bitcoinleri-biliyor-musunuz-613402h.htm, http://www.pb.pl/3454481,8073,bitcoin-alternatywa-dla-systemu-czy-tylko-inwestycja,

Many of these are repeats but they have editorial reviews. DE logics (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first and last are cursory mentions. The eweek article has two sentences about Quark on a slideshow slide. The remaining two are translations of this [14] Guardian article, which has the same two sentences about Quark, which in turn seem to be copied directly from the Quark homepage. To me this doesn't yet demonstrate notability. Smite-Meister (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But they do have editorial reviews, and that's good enough to satisfy the wiki criteria. Can you please quote the wiki guidelines which state such sources are not suited for inclusion. DE logics (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian, at least, would be considered a reliable news source by most. However, the problem is this: "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention". Smite-Meister (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a passing mention in multiple source actually. But these sources in conjunction to the exchanges should be good enough. The exchange issue is being dealt above. Can you please put some thought on it? DE logics (talk) 03:38, 10 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. SarahStierch (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Georgia and Romania[edit]

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

No evidence of this being a cohesive, notable subject. The article seems to consist entirely of statistics and original research. - Mr X 16:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete It fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK as it stands. Sporting rivalries can be notable with enough media coverage, and there is an article Antim Cup about a trophy for matches between the two countries, so there's some notability to these games, but I don't think we need 2 articles which largely cover the same matches. If someone will expand it with detailed textual information on the rivalry, I would reconsider, but even then such information might be included in Antim Cup. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Matches between two Tier 2 nations are not notable enough to record in such a manner. – Pee Jay 12:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both teams have played at the top most level, the Rugby World Cup and thus I feel are good enough to have this page. Teams that have been in the Top 20 consistently should all have a similar page provided they have played each other 10 times atleast and Georgia and Romania have played each other 17 times so it should be kept provided it gets updated with information from some of these games....--Stemoc (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided the article is improved - I don't see anything wrong with articles on the history of games between Tier 2 nations - generally they are nations with a well-established RU setup and usually a decent history of matches. This article needs improvement though and if it does remain as a bare collection of stats I can see the case for deletion per User:Colapeninsula above. Could be merged with Antim Cup perhaps with some explanation of how that trophy relates to the overall fixture. --Bcp67 (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it currently stands, it fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. It should also be noted that WP:NRIVALRY states that sports rivalry (that's what this is, isn't it?) are not inherently notable and that such articles should satisfy the general notability guideline, and I can't find anything that suggest that this one does. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Those two rugby teams are fast growing forces, they are the most powerful sides in Europe outside Six Nations. They regularly play in rugby world cup and have had some remarkable matches. There are some suggests, that this information could be included in Antim cup page (which is similar to Bledisloe Cup), but Antim cup isn't contested, when this countries play each other in World cup, or it's qualification. So that page doesn't and won't include many the matches between the teams. Those two nations have meet each other 17 times and they are regularly winning European cup of nations. Also there are similar to this, other tier 2 teams rivalry pages - USA VS Canada, or Fiji VS Samoa rivalries etc. So in my opinion this page definitely deserves to be kept and deleting it, would be quite disrespecting against Georgians and Romanians. Article has improved and there have been added more explanations about this rivalry. --Woodmana (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The delete arguments are very weak. That these two nations are tier two is irrelevant. And this is clearly a "cohesive" topic. Is there a reason why this article can not be improved to the standard of say History of rugby union matches between France and New Zealand? The rivalry is obviously notable enough for the Antim Cup to have been commissioned. The main problem is going to be finding English language sources, but I'd be shocked if there are not a number of sources in both Georgian and Romanian. The input of Romanian or Georgian speakers would be great. -- Shudde ^talk 01:57, 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to all the arguments above, the fact that the teams have a separate cup dedicated to the winner of the rivalry match between the two national teams suggests that the matchup is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a random choice of two teams who sometimes stumble across each other in international competition - there are very good reasons why their matches should be notable in themselves and as pointed out, the very fact that a cup was established for the purpose confirms that. They are the most successful teams in their region and in the European Nations Cup. As for it duplicating the Antim Cup article, clearly it does not and if anything the case would be for that to be merged into this one, so the deletion argument fails there. What is needed is more text, but the sources will exist for that. --AJHingston (talk) 00:57, 4 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 deleted by Jni as a cross-namespace redirect. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 15:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suvodeep chatterjee[edit]

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

Autobiography of a non-notable person. Claimed notability arises from holding the record (as recorded by WorldRecordIndia, but not Guiness) for the "largest painting by mouth". Pretty sure this is not a category of world record that generates the kind of notability required by Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I userfied this page at almost the exact time the AfD was posted. I recommend that we leave it in user space and let the redirect be deleted under WP:CSD#R2. - Mr X 15:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrapsychology[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was: "This entire article seems to be a summary of the work of non-notable psychology researcher Craig Chalquist. Terrapsychology is his own neologism - this recently coined word does not appear to have any significant notability within the field of psychology."

Also please see comments made at the Fringe theory noticeboard. Worth pointing out that this article was deleted previously, too. — Richard BB 15:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recreation of previously deleted article. Sufficient notability has not been established. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has changed since the last go around. jps (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism not supported by WP:RS-compatible sources. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who originally proposed deletion for the reason above. In summary, the article lacks any evidence of notability - this does not seem to be an actual field within psychology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 3 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. SarahStierch (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BiS Kaidan[edit]

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

The length of the article, and manner with which it has been edited (see review summary for 3rd December, 13:40), suggests that either; the article is not actually notable, or the user who created the page is too directly linked to the subject. (ie. member of group etc.) Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than fairly sure the world's first idol noise band, covered in British and American music press for how wildly unprecedented it is (issue 355 of The Wire has a full page about them), constitutes something notable. For example, I think it's worth noting that a noise album reached Japan's Oricon Top 40, where charting music is generally far more non-threatening.

Hijokaidan is one of the first noise bands in the world (and if Jojo Hiroshige is to be believed, the very first). BiS has broken through to the charts' top ten twice in a row now. The fact that idol culture is so far removed from the pissing, bleeding, visceral performances that Hijokaidan are famous for makes a collaboration like this certainly notable in the minds of anyone who is familiar with idols and noise, hence all the coverage.

Of course, to flat out say that in the article is not really the kind of writing that's suitable for an encyclopedia, obviously.

Instead of moving straight to hastily slating the page for deletion, it might be a better idea for you to state what the problems with it are - there was some vague mention that the sources cited didn't seem "reliable", but there is not a single site cited (try saying that three times fast) that's unreliable. It's short, but can of course be expanded - to me it seems more like a stub than something entirely unworthy of note. This is, after all, the same website with a List of fictional turtles.

"the user who created the page is too directly linked to the subject. (ie. member of group etc.)"

Yes, you've caught me, I am actually a cute, entrail-chucking idol from Japan who edits foreign-language Wikipedia articles in her spare time.❤ Screaming coffee (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A subject covered in detail across continents in The Wire by a respected journalist; also coverage in The Guardian (though less WP:RS as on their site blog). AllyD (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHave to say, on reflection, yes, the article is worth keeping. Clearly a notable group. Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 06:32, 5 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 per WP:A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper insulation[edit]

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

Unreferenced, less than 2,000 Google results. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Jinkinson talk to me 14:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:59, 3 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. Accuracy and clarity are concerns for cleanup. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Null model[edit]

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

The contents of this page are inaccurate and confusing. While null model is a widely used term in statistics and perhaps in other fields, where it may mean different things than in statistics, in network sciences the meaning of null model is the same that in statistics: a way of expressing non-existing structure, the baseline product of randomness that researchers strive to reject. With that meaning, it is frequently used in place of Null hypothesis. Furthermore, the particular realization of null model alluded in this page already has a well fleshed Wikipedia article: Random graph. The only reference provided is relevant to Network Sciences in general but in that paper neither the words "null" or "model" appear, much less both of them together, so I regard it as an invalid source. My opinion is that "null model" in Wikipedia should just be a redirect to Null hypothesis Alcides (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (per WP:SK "The nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action"). Redirection does not require deletion or administrator intervention. It sounds to me like you have the necessary knowledge to turn this into a useful page, and you yourself assert the notability of the topic. A disambiguation page might be appropriate, or a redirect as you suggest. —Noiratsi (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Noiratsi. Best thing is to go ahead and sort things out. Thincat (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (per WP:SK "The nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action"). Seconded. The claim is that the page is a mess not that it should be deleted. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The article reflects a total misunderstanding of the literature. As noted by the nom, null model simply means null hypothesis, even in graph theory, which makes this a WP:CFORK full of errors, and one that should be deleted. -- 101.119.25.193 (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also note that the article title does not even occur in the cited reference. -- 101.119.25.193 (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Null model and null hypothesis are not synonymous concepts. While null hypotheses often contain explicit or implicit null models, null models are used outside of statistical hypothesis testing. For instance, in frequentist statistics, likelihood ratios are computed against null models that may or may not be part of some hypothesis. Similarly in Bayesian model comparison, models are judged by comparing the Bayesian evidence for each model, with no explicit hypothesis to be accepted or rejected, just a measure of explanatory power. This article seems a WP:COATRACK for a particular null model in a single network paper, but the topic of a null model is notable and different than that of null hypothesis. --Mark viking (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mark viking, can you provide a primary or secondary reference to the concept of null model? If so, I'm all for keeping the article and changing the contents to match that concept. Otherwise, rather than have wrong content showing as first entry in Google's search results, I think it is better to have none at all. Alcides (talk) 07:04, 4 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. SarahStierch (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Borchers[edit]

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

Subject is a lawyer and an administrator at Creighton University School of Law in Omaha, Nebraska. Per the article, he has been elected three times to Douglas County Sanitary Improvement District #498, has contemplated a run for U.S. Senate in 2014 but decided against, and might run for the Nebraska State Legislature in 2016. None of these seem to confer notability under WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC. A Google search for ("patrick borchers" creighton) turned up a single Omaha World-Herald story (cited in article) about Borchers and another individual who were considering running for the US Senate in 2014; apart from that, there are lots of passing mentions of Borchers, but nothing in-depth: mostly, passing mentions of or brief quotations from him in articles about Creighton. Google News searches for ("patrick borchers") and ("patrick j borchers") turned up no evidence of notability. A Google News Archives search for ("patrick borchers" creighton) produced results much like those of the Google web search: some brief quotes and passing mentions, but nothing in-depth. On the basis of these searches, appears to fail WP:GNG. Article was created by an SPA, User:Patrick J. Borchers, whose username suggests a COI and possibly WP:PROMOTION. Ammodramus (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Borchers's influence on courts across the country clearly qualifies him under WP:ACADEMIC. See edits to article ----jjhen

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borchers clearly qualifies under WP:ACADEMIC. See the edited entry. He is one of the most prominent authors on private international law and has been cited from courts across the U.S. and into Canada. ---- jjhen — Jjhen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Borchers clearly qualifies under WP:ACADEMIC. He's clearly a leading academic. ---- Hemingwayfan — Hemingwayfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says only "he has argued a case" and "his publications have more than zero citations", neither of which is exceptional nor rises to the level of impact needed for WP:PROF#C1. The WP:AUTOBIO and self-promotion issues are not necessarily fatal (a sufficiently notable subject can rise above being an autobiography) but they don't help, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Clicking on the GScholar link above lists several articles with very high citation rates (181, 173, 124, etc). For his (low-citation density) field, this seems to be very high. --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's been some disagreement between editors as to whether certain statements in the article that have a bearing on Borchers's notability are adequately sourced; see article's talk page. Ammodramus (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the notable level of citation rates pointed out by Randykitty, he has also held a number of administrative posts within his field. While these do not in themselves establish notability, I do think that they do show a certain level of it that combined with the high level of citation meets the requirement for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. GS h-index of 19 passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 23 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:05, 26 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, Wifione ^Message 10:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:PROF - named professorship, many publications w/ high h-index, dean of a major law school. Disclosure: I was acquainted with the subject when I was a law student, but he was not one of my professors. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 9 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) 02:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aap Ka Saaya (2015 film)[edit]

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

Not a notable film, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Only one piece of significant reliable coverage, so fails WP:GNG as well. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not possible to find multiple independent, reliable, sources beyond very minimal routine coverage. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 21:01, 1 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, Wifione ^Message 10:31, 3 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) 01:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes Comics[edit]

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

This article is a boosterish article about a local comic shop in a city of about 350,000. Kchishol1970, it's kind of you to contribute to Wikipedia, but please ensure that every article meets the GNG (summarized at WP:42) before you start writing it. The Toronto Star probably counts as a "major newspaper", but the London Free Press probably doesn't. —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the Joe Shuster Award for Outstanding Canadian Comic Book Retailer is referenced. That's evidence of notability. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 07:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is referenced with the citation on the Award's official website.Kchishol1970 (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the Joe Shuster Award. --Crazy runner (talk) 19:58, 3 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Fruit (Noël Coward song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ("Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material") Source 1 says nothing different that #2 or #3 already say. Sources 2 and 3 discuss the song; source 4 never mentions the song (in the quote), and source 5 trivially mentions the song, and incidental coverage is not coverage. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 07:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also fails WP:NSONGS as it never charted (impossible at its time), but it could be honored with an award any time later or be covered by another artist. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 07:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 07:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Tbhotch, even if they are book sources, the song lacks the significant coverage to warrant a standalone article per WP:GNG. Also fails the various points of WP:NSONGS. STATic message me! 07:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to quote Noël Coward himself:

"a bright 'Point' number: 'Forbidden Fruit,' which I think is worthy of record as it was the first complete lyric I ever wrote.

This nomination is another misuse of AfD process by User:Tbhotch. At the root of this nomination is an effort to keep Forbidden Fruit (J. Cole song) as the only "song" article of the name on Wikipedia to prevent it being titled with the name "J. Cole song" as if it was the only song of the name in existence when Wikipedia has coverage of 10 songs with this title.

Off topic copypaste

;songs:

Forbidden Fruit (Marion Meadows album), or the title song
Forbidden Fruit (Nina Simone album), or the title song
"Forbidden Fruit" (Noël Coward song), a 1916 song by Noël Coward, his first complete song
"Forbidden Fruit" (song), a 2013 song by J. Cole featuring Kendrick Lamar
"Forbidden Fruit", a song by The Band from their album Northern Lights - Southern Cross
"Forbidden Fruit", a song by The Blow Monkeys from their album Animal Magic
"Forbidden Fruit", a song by The Pursuit of Happiness from their album One Sided Story
"Forbidden Fruit", a song by Jessica Simpson from her album In This Skin
"Forbidden Fruit", a song by Paul van Dyk from his album Seven Ways
"Forbidden Fruit", a song by Roy Harper from his album Valentine

It won't come as any surprise that of these 10 songs it is Noël Coward's first song which gets 105 mentions in Google Books. This AfD has nothing at all to do with refs like The Encyclopedia of the Musical Theatre 2001 - Page 436 "Dramatist, revue-writer, lyricist, performer and personality, Noel Coward made himself a special place in the theatre .. before long began writing and composing songs — of which "Forbidden Fruit" (1915) is the earliest surviving example ." and everything to do with a handful of pop music editors wanting to get songs into the "primary song" (song) spot. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Coward won't make the song notable ("...that are independent of the subject...") Also, Forbidden Fruit (song) RM is irrelevant here, it is like if I request the deletion of Kant, Kyrgyzstan because of this. Also this is not a misuse (and you will see this in a week). If an article fails WP:GNG any editor has the right to WP:AFD it. Now, rather than waste your time giving explanations why 2/5 references are significant coverage, start to say this at the article itself, because, using your link:

Sources that trivially mention the song: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Sources that mention this was Coward first song: [29][30][31]
Sources that are not independent to the author: [32][33][34]
False positive: [35]

And those are just the first 20 links, I won't paste more as it is a waste of space. If you want the page to be kept the article must explain why it passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, but mentions like this, sources related to Coward and several references saying that this was wis first song to be written are not coverage but a reason to apply this section. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 08:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

request : I think the article speaks for itself but can I request the next editor to do something about the dark brown box Tbhotch has put round the other 10 songs. or at least have a lighter colour so the blue "show" is visible and something less aggressive than "Offtopic copypaste" such as "Forbidden Fruit (disambiguation)" or "Other Forbidden Fruit songs". Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think In ictu oculi has the better of this discussion. I can't agree with the nominator's characterizations of the sources. And I can't agree that the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting this sourced article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added another ref that has a substantial discussion of the song. The song is notable, as it was selected by Coward for his songbooks, performed in a film about Coward's life, and discussed in numerous sources. Citron and Parker both write that the song encouraged Coward to continue songwriting. The article cites reliable sources and gives some good history and analysis of the song. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Noël Coward song. I think what's going on here is that User:In ictu oculi is going around creating short articles for various classic songs, which is entirely laudable. In a lot of those cases there are existing articles Song Name (song), often referring to somewhat emphemeral recent songs, so all this may be fallout from that. Herostratus (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noel Coward's first song, and referenced in quite a lot of media. I was expecting to vote the other way until I read the discussion and the article. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 22 1916 songs, 854 2013 songs and 1249 2013 singles. Something is wrong with the numbers and this entry goes some way to addressing that balance. Oh, and notability has been established too. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Very surprised to see this nominated for deletion. Coward thought highly enough of the song to include it in his collection of lyrics published in the 1960s, and as part of the finale of Cowardy Custard (a 1970s Coward show, revived recently) it was tremendously effective. (I must dig out details of both and add them, when I have time.) Tim riley (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version I nominated to deletion. The question is why IIO created that version and not the current version. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the question I'd ask. I'd ask why Tbhotch supposes that a promising start such as the one linked to in the line above should be strangled at birth when it has clear potential, now fulfilled, to be a fine article. The other point worth making at this point, I think, is that as the silly idea of deleting this article has been voted down, we need to rationalise the naming of similar articles. The title of Forbidden Fruit (song) plainly needs to be adjusted to something like "Forbidden Fruit (Jermaine Cole song)" so as not to lead readers to one article rather than another when there is no pressingly primary one. Tim riley (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You wouldn't ask it, but I'd do it, considering IIO's constant creation of pages that initially lack of notability, and it is proved until they are at AFD. Also Forbidden Fruit (song) RM is irrelevant to this AFD discussion, as this is not RM and it has been moved. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 09:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tbhotch, we've had this discussion before in several forums and you have been told by several other editors that notability is determined by what is notable. Your "that initially lack of notability" (?) comment illustrates that you don't understand this. As for Lingdian I consider that as created it already passed WP:IDEALSTUB in providing a basis for other editors (and myself at my leisure) to work on in translating what was a major Chinese band of the 1990s. The 3 sources given: China With a Cut: Globalisation, Urban Youth and Popular Music, World Music Volume 2 Latin and North America Caribean India Asia and Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture were enough of a starting point to meet WP:IDEALSTUB's requirement of indicating notability from sources, but equally important providing enough base for the article to be expanded - even without reference to zh.wp. Following me and placing speedys and AfDs hasn't so far resulted in any of the articles you've speedied or AfDed being deleted and has just consumed editor time. We have already had this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applause (Bonnie Franklin song) and I would suggest that you now let go of this. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? Seriously? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability seems to be established both because it was Coward's first successful songwriting attempt and because he himself attached significance to it. The weakness of the argument that the numerous mentions of it do not go into detail is that these make it all the more likely that people will want to look it up for more information, which is what an encyclopaedia article is for. Guidelines exist to help us sort out things that people are reasonably likely to want to find here from things less likely. That is why we have articles on famous people, books, songs etc, not because they are necessarily more deserving of being remembered. --AJHingston (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Herostratus, thanks. FWIW User:Rushton2010 made a similar comment here on a previous AfD with similar characteristics, where a hit 1970 Broadway song conflicted with 2013 Applause (Lady Gaga song). I believe the problem is a combination of WP:RECENT and lack of use of Google Books when assessing how really "unambiguous" the latest mp3 downloads are when compared to 300 or so years of popular music recorded in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be quite notable, but it would be nice if some online sources were added. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 07:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ray, a lot of the sources are online at Google Books, but In Ictu needs to link them in the refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, fine sure, but please be aware that Google Books stock deprecates and access from different countries to different books varies. However additional to hardwired citation the link can be added, yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable, but as per Ray sources should be linked where available.Blethering Scot 18:28, 4 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 karaoke. SarahStierch (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live band karaoke[edit]

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

WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Complete mess. No references, full of WP:EL violations. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably redirect to karaoke (which mentions this topic briefly). I would have thought this might be a notable topic, but I can't find significant information other than listings of bars/clubs - to produce an article we'd need more than that. Additionally the current article is full of original research. If people can find trustworthy newspaper or magazine articles discussing live band karaoke in general (e.g. history, description of how it works, comparison with regular karaoke, referenced opinions that aren't just bar or band reviews) it could be saved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to karaoke; the page itself is a definite nuke and pave candidate, and live band karaoke isn't that distinct from karaoke. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May you live in interesting times[edit]

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

This doesn't seem notable. It's been used a couple of times (although many of the uses in the "Popularization and usage" are original research/jumping to conclusions), but plenty of other sayings have been used a couple of times and don't have articles. I'm just not seeing the coverage that would make this notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase has been used far more than a "couple" of times, and the phrase, especially as a topic associated with Robert F. Kennedy, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources for many years. Please feel free to write articles about other notable phrases, but the lack of those articles so far is not a good argument for deleting this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. The speech is notable, and discussion of the phrase within the context of the speech is perfectly acceptable. However being used in a notable speech doesn't serve as the basis for an article. The object of commentary, ultimately, is the speech. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem with your response is that, even though RFK popularized the phrase, it predates his usage, it has often been used with no reference to him, and the phrase and its problematic origins have been discussed completely outside the context of its usage in an RFK speech given in South Africa. As a matter of fact, when the phrase is discussed and analyzed, the broader content of that specific speech is rarely discussed. That's why the phrase is independently notable, because the phrase itself is so often the primary subject of the coverage, not the speech and not RFK. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely used enough to be notable and I hadn't realised the connection with RFK. It's no "Ich Bin Ein Berlinner" Neonchameleon (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen328. Enough sources and substantive discussion to be worthy of an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does seem notable. Warden (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I must say I am puzzled why this would be considered for deletion. Reasonable sourcing and decent article structure are evident, and deleting the article does not improve the encyclopedia. Jusdafax 10:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing is there that proves it exists. Sourcing is not there that discusses it in critical detail. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel the article talk page shows that there is, and that the article could be improved further from where it is now. Consensus clearly exists to keep: I respectfully suggest we close. Jusdafax 22:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Go ahead. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio C. Bonapace[edit]

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

Obvious conflict of interest. The page was created by Antonio Bonapace (talk · contribs) as autobiography. Doesn't seem notable. Alex^{discussion ★} 05:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Self-promotion - vanity article. Delete Neonchameleon (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 8 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 per WP:A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan alan[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 04:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Man (diabetes education)[edit]

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

Somewhat promotional article for teaching device without any evidene of notability at all. The only ref I can find is [36], on p.20., but this is a very difficult title for searching, DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I coud find basically nothing about this technique, and the article references provide nothing. This article was created five years ago by an SPA and has been basically untouched ever since. Kudos to DGG for finding and nominating it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the WP:SPA had also objected to a notability claim before. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A minor education technique like this doesn't deserve a page here. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Institute of Psychosomatic Medicine[edit]

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

Previously deprodded, or I would have considered speedy. Promotional article for organization with zero evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete' fails WP:ORG. fancy name but the references are all small mentions not in-depth coverage in reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. I could find nothing at all at Google News Archive. The article's references prove only that the organization exists. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 3 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 Memphis Tigers. Get to work :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis Tiger's Soccer[edit]

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

Non-notable sports team. No independent refs. No claim of notability. Nothing obvious in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an NCAA Division 1 athletic program.[37] Ample news coverage easily found. [38] We have numerous articles about similar collegiate programs, see Category:College men's soccer teams in the United States. This article needs improvement but the program's overall notability is clear. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some examples of the "Ample news coverage easily found." that you consider to be in depth coverage and also independent? A quick check of a handful of those search hits and everything appeared word-for-word on a U Memphis site of one type or another, making them press releases / canned stories and not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Memphis Tigers Team is notable, but is an average program which hasn't advanced far past the regular season, so some merging to the main team article is more appropriate. Note that I changed casing of "soccer" in title to meet WP:MOS. Nate • (chatter) 09:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Memphis Tigers - not independently notable, merits a redirect. Giant Snowman 13:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Memphis Tigers - Athletic program is notable as NCAA I but the football team is not. Little indication of significant coverage outside of primary sources. Fenix down (talk) 17:07, 6 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 per WP:A11 by Jni. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top 25 ps2 games of all time[edit]

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

Made up list of games. No evidence of WP:LISTN notability. Possibly meets WP:CSD#A11. - Mr X 04:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the author's prefered list of top playstation 2 games. There is no controversy here, just delete it. --Tco03displays (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A11. The article states it's a made up list by the author and his/her friends. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:32, 3 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. Probably it is just too early, the delete proponents may want to try in a couple of years, then we really know how significant it was.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Saltsjöbanan train crash[edit]

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

as per WP:EVENT and WP:PERSISTENCE. no long standing notability. a huge spike in coverage in January and February 2013 and now has effectively quietened. all the WP:CRYSTAL balling from the last AfD hasn't occured. no one died which makes less notable too. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of independent sources, and meets WP:GNG. Should not have been Proded. Bhtpbank (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG. there is no persistent coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Justin Bieber just visited Sydney and got a lot of international coverage. we don't create articles for that either. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. The fact that it caused a very brief spike in coverage during a couple of days in one month does not justify the article's retention, particularly as there is nothing WP:NOTABLE about the incident. Article also fails Wikipedia:Notability (railway incidents). Lamberhurst (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Refering to Wikipedia:Notability (railway incidents) is specious and misleading, as this proposal failed due to a lack of consensus. Furthermore, the guidelines for notability clearly state that notability is not temporary. - Bhtpbank (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BabbaQ and Bhtpbank. This was and is notable because of a cleaner being accused of stealing a train - even though she was cleared of all blame. If all the relevant information on this were merged into Saltsjöbanan (the only logical target) then it would be significantly undue weight on a single incident. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This was and is notable because of a cleaner being accused of stealing a train" is not a criterion of notability. really, a minor incident with one person injured. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is indeed not temporary, but in today's media world even a worldwide explosion of news coverage does not establish notability. There needs to be WP:PERSISTENCE, and of that, there is none. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete A flash in the pan due a questionable accusation, it has all but disappeared from view on-line if you ignore the initial burst of publicity. Keeping it is something of a BLP problem given that the woman accused was fairly quickly cleared. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News coverage does not establish notability, fails WP:NOTNEWS & WP:PERSISTENCE. LGA _talk^edits 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not yet fail WP:PERSISTENCE. Reason: If an event is cited as a case study after the initial coverage has died down, then it is an indication of lasting significance. As there is a report being prepared, I suggest that this event will be remembered, and thus will continue to be notable. -Bhtpbank (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"will be remembered" that is WP:CRYSTAL balling. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep -Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Bhtpbank (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you have already !voted. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is not temporary. PERSISTENCE arguments are premature, investigations take many months to complete, following which a report will be published. Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it has been almost 11 months since the event, what report are you referring to? Are you basing notability on some report that has received no coverage? LibStar (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Statens Haverikommission are investigating the accident. Nothing should be read into the fact that it has taken eleven months so far and no report has been produced. Eighteen months to two years is a far more realistic timescale. In the UK, the RAIB has investigations dating back to June 2012 open. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are WP:CRYSTAL balling saying this event will be notable when a future report is released? you can't presume notability on the basis of that. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying notability has already been established, and that ir will be strengthened when the final report is released. Mjroots (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"will be" says it all. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a routine news report (a train crash with people injured is not everyday news), thus passing WP:NEVENT; plenty of coverage. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes according to WP:NEVENT, this does not meet WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:PERSISTENCE. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 9 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgos Fountoulis[edit]

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

See relayed discussion @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manolis Kapelonis

Both this Article and Manolis Kapelonis should be placed under an article concerning their murder. Individual articles do not seem useful or give these men notability. Tco03displays (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, then delete without leaving redirect per nom. Epicgenius (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are just not notable for even one event Perhaps one or two lines on a general terrorism article, such as Terrorism in Greece. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this does not improve the encyclopedia. Dloh cierekim 16:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the article has been redirected (more than once, but lastly) to Terrorist attrack to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office.(sic) I proposed that article be merged to Terrorism in Greece. Dloh cierekim 16:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deleting w/o redirect destroys the gfdl credit for writing the thing trail, so no to that. Unless someone knows how to Wikipedia:Merge_and_delete.PS, the merge as proposed could have been accomplished via discussion between the users without an AfD. Dloh cierekim 16:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This starts to become ridicilus. Can an admin clean up this mess? These are the pages: Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office, Manolis Kapelonis, Giorgos Fountoulis, Murder of Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos Fountoulis. I support that the content of Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office be moved to Terrorism in Greece. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about stepping is at this point, but it will be better to await the consensus of this and the related discussion, let the dust settle and see where everything has landed. Then we can straighten it all up and make it nice. Dloh cierekim 22:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that I've made some significant mistakes and dealt with this poorly. I did not know how to tag the two original articles for merging, and I tagged them for deletion (possibly that was unnecessary) while I created a new article merging them. That was my mistake and I apologize for this mess. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add Γιώργος Φουντούλης and Μανώλης Καπελώνης to the mix as well.. --Tco03displays (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete both this article and Manolis Kapelonis. Subject matter is covered in Attack at Golden Dawn Office on 1 November, 2013 --Tco03displays (talk) 09:07, 5 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) 02:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival of illusion[edit]

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

Non-notable magic act. reddogsix (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:10, 26 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) 02:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the article should be speedied under WP:CSD#A7. Might also apply under G11 as well, but A7 is more applicable in this situation. RomeEonBmbo (Talk) 04:00, 3 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) 02:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Attali[edit]

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

I'm not going to claim that this is a WP:HOAX, but this person doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I've found it virtually impossible to find sources (even unreliable) about him that are not Wikipedia mirrors. This is what I've found: [39] (passing mention; possibly another individual of the same name), [40] and [41] (unreliable source). The article says, "he received a légion d'honneur", but his name is not found at List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name; this is not conclusive, but somewhat fishy nevertheless. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a lot of recipients of the Légion d'honneur; according to our article, there was (in 2010) 74,384 at the lowest rank and about 20,000 at higher ranks. This means he may well have it, but equally it's not a very strong indicator of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 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) 02:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sole reliable source is a passing mention of a promotion in an industry newsletter's generalized "people" section. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bio that's seven years old and currently has no references and a grand total of one editor (and three bots)? Neonchameleon (talk) 18:14, 3 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) 02:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mujjo[edit]

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

Notability not established; only non-affiliated sources are two blogs. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 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) 02:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Highbeam search turns up a few newspaper mentions (Irish Times, New Straits Times, Daily Mirror). However these are passing mentions of the products, in lists of novelty gift ideas, and fall short of the coverage of the firm that would be needed to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage not sufficient to establish notability --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:30, 3 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) 04:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jonathan Creek cast members[edit]

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

Selective list of cast members without set criteria listed. Actors in prominent roles (invariably the famous ones) are already noted by episode in List of Jonathan Creek episodes. HornetMike (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:56, 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) 02:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant with Jonathan_Creek#Cast and doesn't need a separate article - a separate article on JC characters could mention the actors but as it stands this article has no info that's not in the main article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - make sure everyone's in the Jonathan Creek list on the cast page and we'll lose nothing. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:17, 3 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manolis Kapelonis[edit]

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

Both this Article and Giorgos Fountoulis should be placed under an article concerning their murder. Individual articles do not seem useful or give these men notability. Tco03displays (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article seems like a stub right now and you guys are kind of revert warring it. I was going to request page protection until I saw the AfD (really like 9 unconstructive edits since it was created today?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NDKilla (talk • contribs) 02:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC) My bad for not signing. Whoops.[reply]

I was very skeptical of the articles due to the nature of the topic - both of them contained clear language indicating that the article was sympathetic to the far right, unsupported assertions, lack of referencing etc. Due to the sensitivity of the topic I watched it closely and tagged it early. However the topic is noticeable and should be included. If the two articles are merged into a single one regarding the murder of these two Golden Dawn members, we may be able to reach a neutral point of view through the editing process. But by having two semi-biographical articles we will not cover the notability of the topic. --Tco03displays (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I and the people WORLDWIDE are not stand by the TERRORISTS. What is this? Support to a far-right? We have two Victims so please do me a favor... --Katcheic (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you repeatedly. Read the guidelenines and rules of how t write and article and how to use appropriate sources. You seem to ignore me every singe time, and the minor corrections I make are reverted again and again. This is Wikipedia. if the article tends to look biased, have a tone that is inappropriate and the sources are unreliable it has to be fixed as soon as possible. Do not the sensitivity card against me. Here we have an article that is indeed sensitive, two people have recently died, a whole society was shocked, and the subject is so close historically that is still controversial. And you pop up, creating two semi-biographical articles on wikipedia with questionable primary sources, for the sake of describing the murders. I create a page for the murders combining your information because I considered the subject notable, and you keep on making edits that have no neutral point of view, use inappropriate words such as "etc" and revert my edits when I explain in every edit what the mistake/reasoning was. If you think the subject is sensitive, try treating the article with a bit of respect.--Tco03displays (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

n regards to the article for deletion, all the relevant material has been moved to Terrorist attrack to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office which is at the moment mostly edited by me and Katcheic, in a rather heated way. --Tco03displays (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are just not notable for even one event Perhaps one or two lines on a general terrorism article, such as Terrorism in Greece. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this does not improve the encyclopedia. Dloh cierekim 16:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the article has been redirected (more than once, but lastly) to Terrorist attrack to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office.(sic) I proposed that article be merged to Terrorism in Greece. Dloh cierekim 16:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a bad idea. We could include Terrorist attrack to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office within Terrorism in Greece and delete the individual articles for the victims and the article Terrorist attrack to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office. I was not aware of the article. If the section becomes too long it could become a separate article but I doubt it. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone thought them significant enough to create the article, someone might come looking for them by name. Would leave originals as R to wherever the info winds up. Dloh cierekim 22:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note apparently now at Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Neo Iraklio Golden Down officesic. Dloh cierekim 22:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note A significant discussion that affects this article as well is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgos Fountoulis.

I propose to make both articles about Giorgos Fountoulis and Manolis Kapelonis a simple redirection to the main article Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office... But first we have to take a decision about the main article itself...-- Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! ^talk 02:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete both this article and Giorgos Fountoulis. Subject matter is covered in Attack at Golden Dawn Office on 1 November, 2013 --Tco03displays (talk) 09:07, 5 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgos Fountoulis[edit]

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

See relayed discussion @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manolis Kapelonis

Both this Article and Manolis Kapelonis should be placed under an article concerning their murder. Individual articles do not seem useful or give these men notability. Tco03displays (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, then delete without leaving redirect per nom. Epicgenius (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are just not notable for even one event Perhaps one or two lines on a general terrorism article, such as Terrorism in Greece. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this does not improve the encyclopedia. Dloh cierekim 16:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the article has been redirected (more than once, but lastly) to Terrorist attrack to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office.(sic) I proposed that article be merged to Terrorism in Greece. Dloh cierekim 16:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deleting w/o redirect destroys the gfdl credit for writing the thing trail, so no to that. Unless someone knows how to Wikipedia:Merge_and_delete.PS, the merge as proposed could have been accomplished via discussion between the users without an AfD. Dloh cierekim 16:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This starts to become ridicilus. Can an admin clean up this mess? These are the pages: Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office, Manolis Kapelonis, Giorgos Fountoulis, Murder of Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos Fountoulis. I support that the content of Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office be moved to Terrorism in Greece. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about stepping is at this point, but it will be better to await the consensus of this and the related discussion, let the dust settle and see where everything has landed. Then we can straighten it all up and make it nice. Dloh cierekim 22:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that I've made some significant mistakes and dealt with this poorly. I did not know how to tag the two original articles for merging, and I tagged them for deletion (possibly that was unnecessary) while I created a new article merging them. That was my mistake and I apologize for this mess. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add Γιώργος Φουντούλης and Μανώλης Καπελώνης to the mix as well.. --Tco03displays (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete both this article and Manolis Kapelonis. Subject matter is covered in Attack at Golden Dawn Office on 1 November, 2013 --Tco03displays (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black & White (party series)[edit]

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

Some party... Debresser (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, non-notable. This is not the famous Black and White Ball held in 1966, and hosted by Truman Capote. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, and probably WP:COI to judge by initials of creator and name which occurs in malformed infobox. PamD 12:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. See User talk:A930913/BracketBotArchives/ 6#BracketBot – TDH9213 for more details. Huon (talk) 18:23, 4 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) 02:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Lei Brandt[edit]

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

Former member of a notable band (Varsity Fanclub). Now a singer, dancer, and actor. Eleven Google News Archive hits. I'm not convinced that he meets Wikipedia's strict inclusion criteria which are described at WP:ENTERTAINER. —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:43, 2 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, L Faraone 01:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sherman[edit]

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

Violations of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT (WP:AUTOBIO). This Wikipedia page reads almost exactly like the Matt Sherman entry on LinkedIn. The page was created by "Mtsherman", and this user's editing history is limited almost exclusively on this one page. It seems pretty clear that this guy is basically just using the Wikipedia page as a means of broadcasting his resume. Two other authors - Bobllyons and 1Q2W3E4R - with multiple edits to this page also have an editing history that is almost exclusively limited to this one page, which seems like sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Barryjjoyce (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Google Books search of ("Matt Sherman" iraq) and ("Matt Sherman" afghanistan) brings up some hits. They are fairly trivial in word-length. Although he did hold some higher level advisory positions, there's not much content to write an article with, in terms of independent sources (not interviews, material by Sherman or other primary sources). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:30, 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, L Faraone 01:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like pure wp:Self-promotion to me; one of the three major editors was Mtsherman, and a second appears to be Mtsherman again. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Fields[edit]

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

Have had a quick Google search in Books/News Archive/etc and cannot find any reliable sources for this designer. Seems very small fry, and notability is not conferred by being an assistant to notable people. As it's been up a while, I am bringing to AFD. Mabalu (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no meaningful claims of notability in the article and the only source provided hardly establishes notability, nor could I find any reliable and verifiable sources about the subject in a search of Google / News / Archives. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 26 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, L Faraone 01:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possible userify if Srhinesmith wants to continue work. Odd, since a designer that has claims to have appeared in New York Fas hon Week (as per YouTube) ought to have coverage in secondary sources, but nothing seems available. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 9 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. SarahStierch (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rena Koh[edit]

Request withdrawn

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

Can't see any in-depth coverage of this company/designer on a quick news/books search beyond random "The bride wore a Rena Koh dress" in small town press type stuff. Happy to withdraw if notability can be shown. Mabalu (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure, she's not a global icon of fashion, and doesn't have a terrible amount of biographical coverage, but I think Rena Koh dresses meet GNG in the field of bridal gowns and her dresses have featured in enough fashion awards and publications to be noteworthy. Google image Rena Koh, looks clearly notable in its field to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Blofeld asked me to comment. The British Bridal Awards are the UK wedding industry's equivalent to the Oscars. The industry is huge. People spend more on their wedding than on a lifetime of movies. A prize for best "Long and Romantic" dress is enough to establish notability in itself. Google gives gives hundreds of images. Regardless of the depth of coverage of the subject's personal life, there is immense interest in her work. Clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:19, 27 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, L Faraone 01:22, 3 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) 04:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qusay Tariq[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article creator is probably the article's subject. I can't find reliable sources about him. Google search using his name in Arabic gives only 75 K results with most of the results being blog posts. Facebook page has only 275 likes. There is an article about him in Arabic Wikipedia created by a single purpose account and I nominated it for deletion there. Meno25 (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For longer, I do not see a problem in that the writer is the author of the article as long as the person his achievements in his field, and received several awards, and famous in his community. The article may be in need of revision and re-drafting, but are not eligible for deletion in my opinion.––––

Qusay Tariq this character famous and available

[42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] u = 162485; sa = showPosts [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.239.168.60 (talk)

Delete I can find only articles written by him, on social media, in forums, or in a newsletter by a group of Iraqi artists based in Sweden. This also describes the links given above. No reliable sources. As Meno25 native language is Arabic, I'll assume he has checked Arabic sources. Bgwhite (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first person from the Middle East in addition to P. H. S. Magic of Art & High School Magic of [61]

~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by QUSAY TARIQ art (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remain I do not see a problem in that the writer is the author of the article as long as the person his achievements in his field, and received several awards and I know him he was a famous artist and his weight in Iraq, and is famous in his community. The article may be in need of revision, but is not eligible for deletion in my consciousness I checked google and found he was a man by the available information profusely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali samer (talk • contribs) A clear single purpose account that its only contribution is participating in this discussion. --Meno25 (talk) 06:55, 26 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, L Faraone 01:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing very probable violations of WP:AUTOBIO and WP:SOCK here. As for the article itself, if he is notable, WP:NUKEANDPAVE would appear appropriate. Delete Neonchameleon (talk) 19:28, 6 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 Kollel. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Community Kollels in the United States of America[edit]

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

Unneeded list. Only one entry was ever placed on the list, and that entry was redirected based on a deletion discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Kollel This article has a reliable source about the community kollel concept, and the Kollel article has further material. There's not enough here to merit a standalone article now, but I could see one justified in the future. The "of America" should be dropped from the title and the article changed to a redirect. The "Kollel" article can serve as an incubator to foster development of a list that could be used to recreate a potential list in the future. Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 26 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, L Faraone 01:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect: per Alansohn, as well sourced information lacking significance as an independent article for now. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Kollel#Community kollels. Hopefully there will be a time when this topic can be developed within WP boundaries. It is a pity that the only example on this article's page is a topic that was itself up for an AfD and was also subsequently "merged and redirected" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bensalem Jewish Outreach Center). HOWEVER, PLEASE NOTE: Please see Kollel#Community kollels. There are in fact dozens of such institutions that have sprung up all over the USA and they would deserve an article of their own deserving of encyclopedia entries, but it will require a lot more than this basically "empty" list that mentions only one such institution that itself was not deemed worthy of its own stand-alone article. Editors who wish to contribute such articles must ensure they make the effort to introduce a well-documented article with many examples. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:20, 5 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. User:LavaSnake, let me know if you want me to move the contents into your sandbox. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parley (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Inadequately sourced article about apparently non-notable software. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. The article was recently recreated after being deleted as WP:CSD#G11 (advertising). - Mr X 19:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recreated this page to try to provide useful information and links on the KDE Parley program. Could you please help me improve this page so it meets the guidelines? LavaSnake (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I would be happy to help. Can you point me to some reliable sources that show that this software is notable enough to merit having an article in the world's most prominent encyclopedia? - Mr X 19:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to provide that by referencing it's listing on KDE-Apps.org which includes a short review and comments. KDE-Apps.org is an independent site and one of the most popular lists of apps for KDE. Would these sources help?

https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/natty/parley/
http://linuxappfinder.com/package/kvoctrain

Thanks for your help! LavaSnake (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closely affiliated sources and the software developer's website are not sufficiently good sources for establishing notability. Please read WP:RS and WP:N. Notability is usually established by media or scholarly coverage by third party sources such as newspapers, magazines, journals, books, news web sites, and some blogs. For example, if there were a CNET or Linux Journal article on the software, that would establish a level of notability. A mere mention is not enough. - Mr X 20:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I'll try to find a review or article on it then. LavaSnake (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:05, 25 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, L Faraone 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would an article such as this one help support the Parley's notablity? LavaSnake (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional sources and improvements to the article which should fix the issues with notability and third party sources. Can I now remove the deletion notice and the tags on notability and third party sources? Thank you! LavaSnake (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like you've added one source to a website called Linux Links. It seems to be merely a description of features, not a review or an analysis of the software. There's no author listed and no evidence that the site is under editorial control, or is even authoritative on the subject. Did you read the guidelines that I provided above?

You can not remove the deletion notice. An uninvolved admin will assess consensus after enough people have commented in this discussion. Please read the guide to deletion. - Mr X 16:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them and that source is a little weak, but since this software is in development I've had a hard time finding normal reviews on it. I also did look through that site before adding it and it seemed to have a lot of good information on Linux apps. Thank you for helping me with this and clearing up my confusion about the deletion notice; I'm new to this and still trying to learn how it all works. What would be the best way to show the notability of this program if I can't find any better sources? Thanks again! LavaSnake (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be as straightforward as possible: If there are no better sources then the software is simply not notable, at least not yet. You may try contacting some magazine editors to see if they will write about it. You might even be able to submit a bylined article. Magazines love free content. - Mr X 16:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Would it be best to move this page to my sandbox until I can find or write a good source for it? If so then what you be the best way to tell you when it's ready to be reviewed again? LavaSnake (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could be moved to your sandbox after this discussion, or it could be WP:REFUNDED. - Mr X 13:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since sources can not be found to show this program's notability I'd like to go ahead and move it to my sandbox and delete the public copy. What is the best way to go about doing that?LavaSnake (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this article clearly fails WP:NSOFTWARE; it has absolutely no notability whatsoever. The KDe-Apps.org is NOT a secondary source. It's a listing site you can post programs on, as the author of the software did, this is identical to being a clone of the primary source. The linuxlinks.com is literally a directory site that copied the description verbatim. All sources listed, other than the primary source, are for software listing/directories, where the description is a verbatim copy of the software description from the primary source unworthy and has no value on wikipedia. Numerous ¹ ² google search. Not only there are absolutely no secondary sources, the additional references are a 100% verbatim copy of the primary source with absolutely nothing constructive added (see WP:RELY). --CyberXRef^talk 13:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search for 'parley' and for 'parley +kde' did not reveal any such coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:04, 7 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. postdlf (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J Plattus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andrew J Plattus

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

None of the sources used to support the article makes reference to the subject of the article, Andrew J Plattus. Formerip (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:HOAX. This particular business magnate not only has no coverage, in reliable sources, he has no coverage in unreliable sources. There are plenty of references provided in the article. A few are dead links. The rest fail to verify the article in any way, shape or form. In particular, the references for his MBA from Yale link are a problem. The first refernce is to an article about somebody named Rachel Plattus with no mention of an Andrew Plattus. the second reference supplied for his MBA is for an "Alan J. Plattus" who is a professor of architecture and urban design. I see in the lede of this article, that "(Alan)" and it's reference was added later by a different account. But that doesn't make the original reference for Rachel any better. The entirety of the referencing that aren't dead links are like this; they all fail to actually cover anybody named Andrew J Plattus. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 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, L Faraone 01:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP: HOAX. (Married in the Sistine Chapel?)JSFarman (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plenty of footnotes, but ~~almost all are mere mentions, profile listings and similar poor quality sources~~none even metion the subject. A search for reliable sources that cover the subject in depth yield no results.- Mr X 12:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "mere mentions". There's no mentions at all. Formerip (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stand corrected. I originally skimmed the source content looking for the word "Plattus". In fact one source mentions "Rachel Plattus" and another mentions "Perry Plattus". - Mr X 01:54, 4 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. postdlf (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Crouch[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE notability. - Mr X 22:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 22:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 22:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 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, L Faraone 01:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although a member of the US Men's national team, Men's softball is a non-Olympic sport. Being a member of a team that plays a marginal sport does not appear to meet WP:ATHLETE. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:25, 9 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 deleted as promotional (CV). Peridon (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Filby[edit]

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

I fail to see the purpose ot significance of this article. Tco03displays (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ Strong speedy delete WP:CSD#g11. No assertion of notability. no sourcing and promotional. Reads like a curriculum vitae. Dloh cierekim 00:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is my first post and a work in progress. Mark is a Promoter and has done great work with many Charities. Hopefully this will bring awareness to these great causes.PJ2075 —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though not so active as once I was, I see part of my admin role as coaching new users. To "bring awareness to . . . great causes," is not Wikipedia's role. This is exactly why we feel the article must be deleted. If you wish to be an editor at Wikipedia, you might start by reading WP:42 and WP:Soap. Thanks, Dloh cierekim 22:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 actual person with no assertion of notability. EricSerge (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Someone appears to have put their own CV up on Wikipedia. He also appears to have deleted the AFD once. And no, the above comment from the article writer doesn't help. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As aforementioned, it seems like someone did post their CV. Based on the article as it is, the person is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, despite how notable his charities might be. TCMemoire (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 and G11 - no indication of notability (well, WP:TLDR, but nothing leaped off the page) and just a CV dumped into an encyclopedia. PamD 09:12, 8 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) 04:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hickory Park Restaurant Company[edit]

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

This poorly-sourced article was created for a school assignment.[62][63] I skimmed quickly through the Google News Archives search results pages [64] and I suspect the restaurant does not meet our strict inclusion criteria. To be specific: I suspect it fails both our general inclusion guidelines and WP:CORP. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - print coverage is limited to passing mention in travel guides. Ibadibam (talk) 04:13, 9 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.