Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 July	21 July >

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. Wizardman 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Express Personnel Services[edit]

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

Although a search turns up lots of white page listings for their offices, I cannot find anything that meets WP:RS. It appears to fail WP:NCORP. TKK ^{bark !} 23:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This item indicates they have 500 offices and $1.55 billion in revenue. Looking for significant coverage in reliable sources, I thought I found some but they appear to be advertorials. These two items from the Lakeland Ledger are marked with a byline of "Joan Martin, Ledger Advertising", and this item from the Albany Herald appears in an advertising supplement. I'm quite prepared to change my mind if coverage can be shown. I just wan't able to find it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 23 July 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. Wizardman 16:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Rising (Magazine)[edit]

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

There is only one source for this: the Gale entry is simply based on the magazine's own web page. I've asked the author for additional sources without response. For the scanty library holdings , see the worldcat entry. If it were significant, even in this field, I would have expected more than 2 university libraries DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no evidence of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arya (tribe)[edit]

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

Completely bogus POV article whose only purpose seems to be "proving" the existence of an ancient tribe called "Arya" (contrary to the currently established theories on Indo-Aryan migration). Detailed discussion at Talk:Aryan migration to Assam#Requested move. kashmiri ^TALK 22:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: None of the references cited supports the claim made in the article. The first reference, Fortson (p209) says: "...Indic is also called Indo-Aryan. The word 'Aryan' has had a rather complicated history. The Sanskrit word ārya-, the source of the English word, was the self designation of the Vedic Indic people and has a cognate in Iranian *arya- where it is also a self designation. Both the Indic and Iranian terms descend from a form [...] that was used by the Indo-Iranian tribes to refer to themselves." This makes no mention of a tribe named "Arya", rather that the people who called themselves Arya were not just the "Vedic Indic people" but the superset of Indo-Iranians, both of which are linguistic groups of many tribes, not just one. The different tribes of the "Vedic Indic people" are given in List of Rigvedic tribes. The article deserves to be deleted, as it is based purely on original research. Chaipau (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chaipau, WP:OR, WP:MADEUP. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that any tribe of this name ever existed, and there are plenty of sources that support Chaipau's statement above. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For main discussion, see talk भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main discussion is here - the talk page is only for discussion of things such as process questions that do not have have a direct bearing on whether the article is kept or deleted - so I'll copy the relevant comments immediately below. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri you rather see the references in article, importantly citation two i.e Shendge, Malati Janardan (1996).The Aryas: Facts Without Fancy and Fiction. ISBN 8170173183. This book is completely on Arya people. And regarding reading your comment again, words says that problem is not as much with article content but my concept of Arya people. I like to know from you what is so called concept, if content is not as problematic, what is justification of deletion, how subject is hoax when a book is dedicated to it. As Bridger said after removing speedy deletion template, if it proved duplication, as claimed by Chaipau, it can be redirected not deleted. Why Iranians will use Sanskrit word as self designation. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Few books on Aryas

The Aryas: Facts Without Fancy and Fiction by Malati Janardan Shendge, 1996
The Sacred Laws Of The Aryas by F. Max Müller, 2001
Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas by F. Max Muller, 2004
The Sacred Laws of the Aryas Part II by F. Max Muller, 2004
The wisdom of the Aryas, 1923
The home of the Aryas: with notes, references and appendices by Lachhmi Dhar Kalla, University of Delhi, Prakāśana Vibhāga, 2002 भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do believe that the above list of books is a result of a quick research on books.google.com. I do not think BB actually read those books, because he could not have made the mistake of believing Arya was a tribe if he had read the texts of his own references, as I have quoted above. I have read the section on the self-designation of the "Aryas" in Shendge's book, and the author pretty much ascribes that to the Indo-Iranians. It also turns out that people have reconstructed the root of the word in proto-Indo-European ([1]), where it is possibly a loan word with Ugaritic origins ([2], footnote 4) Chaipau (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that there are and have been people in this region who describe themselves as Aryan. What we lack evidence for is that there was a specific tribe with this name in Vedic times. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, in reply to Bhagawati's invocation of my name, I said "... if it is a duplication [it] would be a valid redirect." This article is not a duplication, but simply an article about an unverifiable topic, so the "would be a valid redirect" part of the comment doesn't kick in. "If" might be a small word but it is very important. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:06, 25 July 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 closed as speedy delete by Bbb23. WP:NAC Beerest355 Talk 23:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Vincent[edit]

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

non notable guitarist, entire unsourced article could be included as a sentence or two in Falling in Reverse Crisis.E X E 22:53, 20 July 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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TechTarget[edit]

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

The text in this article was of a promotional nature, uncited and direct copvio from this site added by TechTarget IT Agenda (Diff)

They are a real company, but I've been unable to find any significant coverage from third-party sources. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 20. Snotbot t • c » 22:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clicking on the Google News Archive link at the header of this discussion provides many reliable sources. Examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] (more exist). The article needs to be filled-in, due to content being removed per apparent copyvio that occurred. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies. I searched the first few pages of google, but didn't think to check 'news'. I will remember to do that in the future. Those sources above do show that TechTarget have had media coverage. I request someone speedily close this as a Keep, as nominator I have changed my opinion. Sorry again. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 04:20, 21 July 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 User:RHaworth. -- 202.124.89.29 (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics Library (IA collection)[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of web resources. No independent reliable sources after repeated requests. The only external citation is to a book by the editor of the collection. Spectral sequence (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no independent sources discussing this entirely self-published collection. (I have also nominated for deletion the article on the editor of the collection: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamid Naderi Yeganeh.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable website. -- Taku (talk) 13:19, 21 July 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 nominator under G7 - creator blanked page. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Symbulator[edit]

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

Notability questionable. Article was created by user Perez-franco. The only sources showing up are a paper and self-published book by Roberto Perez-Franco. The paper is apparently unpublished - the article's only claim to notablility is winning an IEEE Student Paper Contest for Latin America, but IEEE Xplore fails to show up any published paper Spinning Spark 20:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now CSDd this after the creator blanked the page. Could someone else please close this AfD. Spinning Spark 13:03, 21 July 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 all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essex bus routes 500 and 501[edit]

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

Bus routes are rarely notable and this article has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:Notability -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per precedent. A few montha ago, we did a wholesale deletion of bus route articles. They inevitably require regular maintenance, which we cannot guarantee. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wholesale deletion was of bus route lists. Articles about specific routes are subject to the general notability guideline. Articles of this type probably require less maintenance than most articles - they are rarely vandalised, and are intended to provide encyclopedic coverage, not current travel information. Peter James (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per precedent. Maybe an alternate option is to move it to Wikivoyage? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unsuitable for Wikivoyage, as it's an encyclopedia article, not an itinerary, and the topic is a bus route, not a destination. Peter James (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as notability has not been established, and the main editor has been inactive here since 2011. I can't find a precedent that applies here - the deletion of the lists isn't; there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Vectis route 1 (but there are probably more sources here); there is also Talk:The Witch Way/GA2. Peter James (talk) 12:23, 28 July 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 Throbbing Gristle discography. Merging can be done (with appropriate attribution) from history as desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best Of.... Volume I[edit]

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

searched and haven't been successful in establishing this as Wikipedia-notable/deserving of its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Throbbing Gristle discography or possibly merge some content into Throbbing Gristle. The article is packed with WP:OR and completely unsourced, but it's getting some views so could be a search term and it might have something salvageable. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 06:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Throbbing Gristle discography and merge appropriate content to Throbbing Gristle. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Miniapolis 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Throbbing Gristle discography. Merging can be done (with appropriate attribution) from history as desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best Of.... Volume II[edit]

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

searched and haven't been successful in being able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable/deserving of an article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Throbbing Gristle discography or possibly merge some content into Throbbing Gristle, per same reasoning as Best Of... Vol. I. The article is packed with WP:OR and completely unsourced, but it's getting some views so could be a search term and it might have something salvageable. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 06:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Throbbing Gristle discography and merge appropriate content to Throbbing Gristle. Like Best Of.... Volume I, fails WP:NALBUMS. Miniapolis 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Enrique Dos Santos Calçado[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure what you mean by him not playing in a fully pro league- He has played in Malta's highest level and currently plays in Thailand's highest level. I know that those two leagues aren't exactly prestigious, but it still contradicts your reasoning. SOXROX (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Maltese league is confirmed as not fully pro (see WP:FPL) and any appearance in the Thai premier league is not confirmed by fully pro sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He probably hasn't played yet, but it's just a matter of time till he plays. I would wait a week or two to delete, because as soon he plays, the article meets the criteria. Otherwise think the user who created should save all the lines in his sandbox and then post it again when he plays.--Threeohsix (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that he meets GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:12, 22 July 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. Wizardman 03:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Kreator[edit]

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

What's the point of this list? How encyclopedic, relevant or informative a list of songs by an artist really is? Malconfort (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical questions do not make for a sound deletion rationale (if deletion is actually what you're asking for, instead of just expressing how you don't understand why this list exists). We have 250 articles in Category:Lists of songs by recording artists, and AFDs have gone both ways, so there is clearly no rule or consensus against having any such list. So please explain why this band should or shouldn't have one, or this AFD should be speedy closed for failure to advance a deletion argument. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I admit bias as I'm the creator of this page. There are many other lists of songs on Wikipedia and I felt like Kreator warrented their own list. Per WP:LISTV the list has to have some usefulness, which this list does. Someone might know the title of a song, but don't know what album it was from and thus would go to this list to determine that information. The list of songs was too long to be placed in the main article, which is one of the reasons cited that a list is listcruft and also a reason why many cite that there should be a separate list. Also note that this has been discussed before. Pinkkeith (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only. This is merely a laundry list of songs recorded by an artist. It contains no further information other than the album the song appears on. Lists of songs by artist, writer, production etc are welcome, but there has to be purpose. I recommend that Pinkkeith checks out some of the featured lists and sees how this list can be improved. I shall sit on the fence, but can be persuaded to go to keep with some additional work. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First I realize this is only a comment, but I don't think because an article or a list is not up to featured standards is a reason for deletion. Pinkkeith (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this fails the purposes of a list. In the category Category:Kreator songs there are only two songs (ignoring the redirects), so this is essentially a list of two notable items. If they had dozens and dozens of notable songs (IE they had articles for them), then this would pass the notability for having a stand-alone list (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia.). Fancruft at the moment and unlikely to be anything else. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See, @Malconfort:? This is how you make a deletion argument that actually addresses the specific article. postdlf (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of lists that don't have any singles with an article (such as List of songs recorded by Fuck the Facts). I don't believe that the lack of an article for a single is a reason to delete a list of songs. Pinkkeith (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - - WP:OTHERSTUFF. That list is just terrible list-cruft and certainly fails WP:SAL too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kreator discography#Singles. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I think Lugnuts' comments are a complement and explanation for my questionings. This list should be deleted at best.--Malconfort (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be in a discography section of the article. Stifle (talk) 18:10, 27 July 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. Wizardman 03:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaskan Dog[edit]

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

Six months after an AfD that was heavily WP:CANVASSED, nothing substantial in this article has changed and there is still almost nothing to establish this breed's notability. Don't get me wrong, they're cool dogs, I just don't think they have a place here. This, this, and this are the only sources i could find that aren't run by breeders themselves.

This, on a (one of about five million) 'official' Tamaskan registries, has very low resolution (so low as to be unreadable - I understand why, but still) scans of articles on the Tamaskan in several magazines; some of them are in German and Dutch. I still have issues with it, though:

The Florida Lupine News article is literally a direct copy off a Tamaskan breeders' website.
The dutch article looks ok, but I don't speak dutch
The article in Hunde appears to be an interview, but I don't speak german and it's too small to see clearly.
Three of the articles from DOGS Today (from the UK edition) appear to be an editorial/opinion piece about a man getting a new puppy. The fourth seems OK.
The german DOGS Today article, again too small to read so I can't say for sure, appears to be written by breeders involved with Tamaskans.
Source 1 and 2 on the page are both primary sources
Source 3 is a band website news posting about a photoshoot for the band - I don't know if this is a primary source but it is certainly not independent.
Sources 4, 5 and 7 are all for one dog
Source 6 is a sketchy looking list of "cute dog breeds"
Source 8 is a Facebook video

I'm raising this article at AfD a second time so we can perhaps establish a consensus without an influx of breeders from Tamaskan forums. There have been three previous AfDs, two closed as delete (one as speedy delete) and the most recent, six months ago, closed as Keep. I nominated the most recent AfD. TKK ^{bark !} 21:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was nice of the nominator to provide the full Keep rationale. Closed as a Keep earlier as the subject of multiple, substantial independently published sources. I get that the big dog registries still have not recognized this breed, but that's a special guideline pass, not a general guideline pass. There are Tamaskan breeders, Tamaskan clubs, Tamaskan rescues, etc. It is a breed, or if it is not a breed, there has been sufficient material published about the non-breed to source out a freestanding article. GNG pass, and no I haven't been canvassed. I'm a golden retriever guy.... Carrite (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Carrite. It has been sufficiently described in published sources as a breed. Arguments by nominators actually do not invalidate most of the sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 30 July 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISAIMV[edit]

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

I can find no reliable source to back up the information on the article. I'm rather somewhat fluent in Spanish so I searched Google and Google News to see if there were any news sources to back anything in the article and I could find none. All of the references are self-published with no third-party coverage. Also, the website is hosted on a free webhost making the reliable of the site very questionable. Also questionable is the methodology. The article claims the ISAIMV shows the best-selling singles in Venezuela but the website does not say nor does it explain where its getting sales information from. All in all, it does not comply with WP:CHARTS#Suitable charts. Erick (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Erick[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first two hits on Google.co.ve are Facebook pages, the third is this article. Whatever it is, it might be a hoax, or simply isn't notable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a hobby page on Wix.com (roughly equivalent to blogspot).—Kww(talk) 03:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find sources that demonstrate notability for this record chart. Gong show 12:59, 21 July 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. Wizardman 02:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Calzada Alvarez[edit]

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

Poor evidence of notability as a scholar or political figure. One paper has received some attention. Media coverage consists of mentions of the contents of that paper. Novangelis (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails every factor for WP:PROF. His best-cited paper is not that well-cited by other scholars, and is not even wrong. Being a guest of a couple of TV shows, or being mentioned in a couple of local business newspaper articles, do not add anything to a scholar's notability. If that were true, I want my own page. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The record and impact don't pass WP:PROF in my reading either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this article, I imagine I am inherently biased towards saying keep. As evidence I would point to the fact that the Instituto Juan de Mariana, which he founded, has won the Templeton Freedom Award, which is criterion 2 for academics. Jinkinson (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This is one of a series of minor awards funded but not given by the Templeton Foundation, and certainly not to be confused with the true and indeed highly prestigious Templeton Prize. In any case, the award went to the foundation, not the person. The subject himself fails the criteria.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 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. Past consensus is that articles of this sort are not desirable, and the delete arguments make a convincing case that this article is, also, not desirable for a team at this level of the sport. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Hillsboro Hops season[edit]

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

Minor leagues seasons were established as non-notable a long time ago. Any content would be far better suited in the main Hillaboro article. Wizardman 15:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Numerous minor league season pages have been deleted as non-notable, and just because it's their first season after moving doesn't change that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How about a link to one of those prior discussions? Otherwise I have added only a few sources, and there are usually at least two sources for each game, thus it would meet the WP:GNG - which usually trumps the generally speaking types of items. I understand perhaps in the past people just looked these as minor league seasons, but even minor league teams get as much media coverage as small college football teams, and we do have seasons for those. We also do seasons for what are in essence minor league soccer teams. And before someone mentions WP:OTHERSTUFF please note that cuts both ways with the arguments above regarding ones that were deleted. Lastly, since the argument for deletion is notability, did the nominator complete the required WP:BEFORE? Again, hopefully that helps make the point that each article should be considered on its merits, as the general outcomes is really where you are judging a topic to determine if the article is notable on an inherit basis, instead of judging it for what is actually in the article. As in, is the topic notable on its own when you put aside that some prior seasons may have been deleted? Otherwise it is like saying numerous road articles have been deleted as non-notable, therefor all road articles should be deleted, and that is simply faulty logic. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe honestly that all tens of thousands of former minor league baseball seasons are worth an article? The discussion in question (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980 Lynn Sailors season) was on a AAA team, one that could be argued as close to the majors. This is a bottom-level minor league team. This would be akin to a college football season article on a division 3 school, or a very low footy division. It's ridiculous. Wizardman 05:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have articles on every band/musician/politician/restaurant owner/soldier and so on? You know we do not. Instead we take each one on its own merits and judge each by the notability standards. In fact, we do not have any "never" notable categories of articles. Instead, the subject matter notability guidelines are for basically automatically notable topics, not the opposite as you are attempting to assert, which that assertion would be the one that is ridiculous. And to be perfectly honest, given the media coverage, I would not be surprised if each minor league season would actually pass the GNG for those seasons in the last say ten years, and certainly for all at the AAA and AA level. Each minor league game is usually covered at a minimum by the home and away newspapers, most are broadcast on the radio, some are broadcast on TV, and there appears to be a variety of online media that covers MILB, and most of the local newspapers cover the season in more depth than just the game recaps - previews, stories on players. Then look at attendance, which can run to around 100,000 for the season for even short-season A teams like this, which is a lot more than many Div. I FCS teams do for attendance for an entire season. In other words, the media coverage is there due to the economic impact these teams have, and thus why they pass the GNG. Certainly not at the same level of a major league team or an NFL team, but we do not compare the level of notability, only that it meets the minimum. Much like the bar exams do not tell you how good of an attorney one is if they pass, only that they meet the minimum competency. That's what the GNG is, minimal notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And after reviewing the AfD you noted, I doubt all the editors would agree that this one was not, and contrary to the nomination here it certainly did not establish ALL minor league seasons are non-notable. Many noted the particular season was not "inherently" notable, which means it has to be shown, and it is in this case. In fact, one might take from the nom that being the inaugural season might just be the significant thing some of the editors in the old AfD were looking for. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the above logic, individual games would be notable, since each game receives coverage from multiple news outlets. I disagree. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some individual games are in fact notable, not any for this team though. Keep in mind a few sources per game would not be enough for an individual article, as you need more. By the end of the season there would likely be a couple hundred articles covering this season, but nice straw man argument. The fact is, there is a reason why the AfD process automatically provides a way for people to find sources so that actually notability can be determined, instead of opinions that an entire category could never be notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been other AfDs that closed as delete aside from that one. If I have time, I'll try to dig them up later (it's in here somewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 Nashville Sounds season showed (near) unanimity. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I would not be surprised if there are more, but did you look at those debates? While all led to deletion, there was never a consensus that I could see that every season can never be notable. Some put that thought out there, but it was not universal. Frankly, there is no category of topics that are deemed non-notable, despite the assertion. If there is, please point me to the guideline. Given one doubtfully exists, there is a reason: GNG trumps all as to inclusion. This should be clear by the WP:BEFORE requirement on ALL AfDs, which should procedurally do away with this AfD, though my guess is no one here cares about following the Wikipedia-wide rules and guidelines and instead want to hold on to some preconceived notions regarding notability within the sports realm instead of focusing on the merits of the individual article. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other AFDs can be found here[11] and here[12]...William 00:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Season pages for minor league teams are overkill and not needed. At most, each season should get a brief summary on the team's page. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is very well sourced, far surpassing the general notability guideline. Whether or not others create articles about other teams' seasons, as others have brought up, is not relevant to this discussion. The GNG is. -Pete (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have had respect for you and aboutmovies, so it's quite shocking to me that you're supporting such a blatantly non-notable article. Let's try a closer way of looking at it. None of the sources showcase GNG for the specific season. They showcase GNG for the Hillsboro Hops as a whole easily enough, and the team's article is worth developing. However, you guys have failed in explaining here or above why the content cannot be in the main team article. Minor league seasons fail GNG, plain and simple. Wizardman 02:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do WP:BEFORE as required? I have to ask, as if you had, you would find what you are looking for. Notability is not about keeping the info in certain areas, as the only thing that matters is the GNG (and to an extent WP:NOT, but since we do season articles in general then NOT is not in play). But, the reason is once the season is over my personal plans are to add in attendance info, batting/pitching stats, and a complete roster. I think that might clutter up the page, and after a few seasons worth of that info you can see the reason in general why we have season articles. Can you explain how it fails the GNG when there are currently 12 sources there? More to the point, how many sources do you need for GNG? I ask as I'm fairly certain I could get it to 100 if that's what it takes. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References you refer to are little more than routine game coverage. Far from substantial coverage. Article has no content outside of the game log. Spanneraol (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Spanner says, it's the quality of sources, not the quantity. All the ones in the article are routine game coverage, and aren't notability-establishing, or establishing of anything other than the fact that games were played. By your standards, every single game they played that you have a source for would get its own article. Wizardman 15:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently neither of you appears to understand notability. I say this because both of you are judging the topic by the existing article, which is a no-no. Remember, we judge the topic, not the article. Again, this is why WP:BEFORE exists: look for the sources that demonstrate notability. We do not delete non-notable articles, we delete non-notable topics. That is to say, again, neither of you spent so much as minute looking for the sources. I spent about two, and going back just for this month alone, here are the non-game recap articles on the team just from The Oregonian's site (a major, daily newspaper): [13] [14] [15] (different than the other on the guy) [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. More from the same paper can be found if you look.

Engouh with the straw man argument about individual game's notability. As I said above, and is quit clearly covered at the GNG, you need more than just a few articles to make something notable. A single game rarely has that.

Otherwise, how about you just admit you do not like minor league seasons, as at-least you would be honest here.

Lastly, as to respect, I respect editors who follow the rules. Which means we do this old school style and let things be governed by the GNG, and we follow policy (e.g. WP:BEFORE). So far, BEFORE certainly was not followed, so there is one policy violation (the deletion policy), and the fact that editors have the audacity to proclaim certain categories as non-notable shows the GNG is not being followed. Notability is not inherited, nor would non-notability. The basic premise we have for inclusion on Wikipedia is two-fold: each article is judged on its own, and that sources exist to avoid the OR and allow for verifiability. I find it a good idea for editors to remind themselves why we have the inclusion standards, as it seems far to often editors get into little boxes, who then want the inclusion to revolve around their world view of what is notable to them. As in, it often comes down to I have not heard of this topic or it seems to limited in scope geographically, so we should not have it. But the reason we have inclusion criteria was never to make this about having only topics of world-wide or even national recognition, but instead to ensure we have accurate articles: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." Failing to do so leads to lots of wasted time when people fail to get what we are doing here and we have to explain how the guidelines work. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you list above do nothing to establish the notability of the season.. Most of them are about individual player transactions which are more about the players than the team and the others help with the notability of the team itself but not necessarily that THIS SEASON is that important.Spanneraol (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. Article makes no claim to notability and in fact has very little content. All that the article says is that the team exists and played some games... Article only contains a game log... something that can be found on multiple other websites. Article creators arguments that the season has coverage is meaningless, by that basis even many high school teams have game by game coverage. Spanneraol (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While high school teams often do, is that coverage for every game on an in-depth basis by a large newspaper? Maybe where you are from, but where I'm from you get a couple paragraphs at most and maybe a league overview. Also, what is a claim to notability? I've heard that before, but since notability is demonstrated via multiple RS, I have yet to get the concept. Or more to the point, I've never found that in the GNG, only what I wrote about multiple RS. As in, an article does not become notable because the article says they are notable for this or that, the article is notable because the topic is notable (again, articles are not notable, it is the topic) as demonstrated by the sources. And frankly, your description may be accurate as to what the article shows, but that would be an argument against all season articles for all sports: team existed, played some games, lost some, won some. And what does the availability of the information elsewhere have to do with anything? Again, I'm not seeing that in the GNG, can you quote me that section? Personally, I like to stick the guidelines and policies, not random thought processes that if thought through would mean the editor believes Wikipedia articles should not exist if we can find the information elsewhere, which due to the OR limitations we have means we should not have articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nothing you have written shows that THIS SEASON is notable enough for it's own article.... THE TEAM is notable but not the season. The article has NO CONTENT and is just a gamelog which on its own is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. The "topic" of a minor league baseball season has no lasting notability. The standings and statistics of minor league teams don't matter at all in the overall theme of professional baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with you. You simply do not get what notability is. Again, I implore you to read the GNG: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." (emphasis added) The fact you keep talking about the article (e.g. "NO CONTENT") completely and totally demonstrates your lack of understanding of notability. We judge the topic, not the article. Repeat as many times as you need to so you get it. So, when we judge an article at AfD, we look at the topic, which means we see if the topic is notable by looking not just at the article, but other sources that can be found. Again, this ties into why WP:BEFORE is required and given that was not done is grounds enough to invalidate the AfD. Not to mention, importance does not matter. Again, read the GNG: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." (please note both of my quotes here come from the the lede of the GNG, which is where the really important parts of the guideline are located. We simply do not care that much about importance, only notability as demonstrated by the sources. That also means, we don't actually care if this is a minor league team or your local bowling league. What matters, the only thing that matters, is whether the coverage exists. Granted, your local bowling league is almost guaranteed to not have sources, while a major league team generally does. But we do not make blanket determinations that all of such and such can never be notable.

Also, there is more than just a game log, but whatever.

Lastly, each of the articles I listed above do help confer notability, as would coverage of individual games where it goes beyond WP:ROUTINE (as in more than a two paragraph recap), as that is what the season is about. A season is a series of games and roster moves. Not to mention, if the nominator had looked for some sources, even more are out there. As I said, I only went back the beginning of the month, and the coverage has be running for months leading up to the season. Again, look for the sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will go on and on with more rambling nonsense and insults.. but the TOPIC of this particular season is simply not notable and your sources do not show that the season, as opposed to the team or the players, is notable. The gamelog by itself violates WP:NOTSTATS and the rest of the content (what little there is) can easily be incorporated into the main Hillsboro article. Spanneraol (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find Wikipedia guidelines and policy to be nonsense, that's sad. Anyway, how many sources do you need? And, just because the current information could be merged, that has nothing to do with notability. Merging is an alternate to deletion. But let me know how many sources you want. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wholeheartedly agree with Spanneraol's argument. The idea that an individual low-level minor league season is notable is absurd. Penale52 (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it is an almanac in addition to being an encyclopedia and a gazetteer. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" =/= "is an almanac" – Muboshgu (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are indeed many sources, but they are the kind of routine local news coverage that doesn't really establish encylopedic notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you missed the non-game coverage sources mentioned above, not to mention a season is not an event, thus ROUTINE has no applicability. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Spanneraol notes, there is no content outside the game log. Plus, we would be littered with thousands of articles about minor league seasons if this was allowed. Not notable. Mpejkrm (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the guideline or policy that says we delete articles to keep more out? I mean, in general, we judge each article on its own. Otherwise, should we go ahead and delete all articles except what Britannica had circa 1999 so we don't have too many? Seriously, do you even understand why we have inclusion criteria? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... to keep out articles like this.Spanneraol (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming you should not be involved in AfDs until you understand why the inclusion criteria exist. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... this article is about a non notable topic... you do not understand the policies you keep quoting. Spanneraol (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable....William 00:42, 29 July 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 - you can't have a hydroxide without oxygen. Blatant enough for me who didn't do undergrad chemistry... Peridon (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroxide sulfur hexafluoride[edit]

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

Hoax article. What I really want is for someone to G3 this, but I’m not sure whether this really qualifies as a blatant hoax (it should be blatant to anyone who has taken a couple of undergrad chemistry courses). The most obvious part is that you can’t produce a sulfur- and fluorine-containing compound out of two reagents neither of which contain any sulfur or fluorine atoms (see TNT and nitroglycerine). Secondly, sulfur does not take a valence of 7 (its maximum oxidation state is 6) so unless I’m missing something, I suspect the molecule is also impossible. (There are also a couple of other irregularities, e.g. the chemical formula does not match the name of the chemical, but I suppose that’s less important.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Might as well tag it with G3 and see what an administrator thinks. 63579 milliseconds? Looking pretty hoax-y to me. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Singh[edit]

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

Article looks like a blog, lacks clarity, notability and is full of primary sources. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article lacks third party sources! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the present set of references are either primary or weak and unreliable, and some of the content is still unreferenced. One of the refs redirects to a paid content website (Contentsutra.com --> paidcontent.org). References shedding light on his employers do not count; notability can not be inherited. Rohini (talk) 15:35, 21 July 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. Wizardman 02:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oneflare[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. It's received very little media notice. Just this article and this. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom sats 07:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, site has received significant media coverage, including LifeHacker, Techradar, Shoestring .. would you like me to go on? Jamsi (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had already linked to Techradar. ~~LifeHacker looks good,~~ but not the unsigned Shoestring. ~~Is two enough?~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, LifeHacker is an interview, i.e. a primary source, and therefore does not satisfy verifiability. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:36, 26 July 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. copyvio Secret ^account 04:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities Commission on Accreditation[edit]

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

Non-neutral article, partly copyvio from About Pacucoa. Also written by a known sockpuppetteer who used a sockpuppet to get this article approved at AfC after having it declined several times. The Banner talk 10:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination statement and there are over 160 references all going to the same site with no independent reliable source sited.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:30, 20 July 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) 01:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darren De Luca[edit]

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

Plays on a youth team associated with Jomo Cosmos. Appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Taroaldo ✉ 08:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has never played in a fully professional league so fails WP:NFOOTY and has not received significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. T 88 R (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:19, 22 July 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) 01:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Horowitz[edit]

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

Prod opposed by IP who says "you never do WP:BEFORE. I did do a WP:BEFORE and found nothing on the guy, just articles that he's written. The current sources in the article are not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Man-with-a-job; and he once appeared on a reality tv show; good enough info to put on his employer's website profile, but not evidence of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another non-notable sportscaster entry with poor sourcing. Not all broadcasters are notable. Hairhorn (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably not; but I have been trying to make them notable; only a few, Jeff Phelps, Jeff Grayson, and Adam Amin. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Independent sources, not just an employer's staff list. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related discussions. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Levdr1lp / talk 19:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not meeting WP:BASIC to qualify for a Wikipedia article at this time. The standard source searches used by clicking on the GNews and GBooks links at the header of this discussion are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources (it's a rather common name, though), but nor are customized searches such as [22], [23], [24]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Fails WP:GNG & WP:BIO.--JayJasper (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Jason Horowitz needs to be deleted, so does [[Tom Crabtree (journalist). I nominated that particular article for deletion as well as Ari Wolfe and Stu Klitenic. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 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) 01:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph romano[edit]

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

setting aside the promotional problems, i cant find any indication of actual notability. deputy sheriff and ceo of a nonnotable company are not enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be an upstanding citizen, but there's nothing there that sets him that much apart from the crowd. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are plenty of hits on Google, but it doesn't look like they're the same person. ^King Jakob _C2 11:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable person....William 13:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could have been prodded, since it's not even clear what he is claimed to be notable for. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. kikichugirl ^inquire 21:38, 24 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Action[edit]

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

Article in question is about an organization that appears to be non-notable. A quick search through Google News shows nothing newsworthy. Article uses its own org's web page as sole reference. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highbeam turned up various items of newpaper coverage on the organisation, its projects and supporters, now referenced into the article. I can also see coverage on various Christian websites. Also some traces on the Guardian website, though these are more about the charity as a recipient of workplace giving schemes. Enough out there I think to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at the accounts filed with Charity Commission here. This shows income of £600,000. For a Christian charity this is a significant sum, though not enormous. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:45, 23 July 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 soft delete. No comments for 2 weeks. Treat as an expired PROD. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TG Box 1[edit]

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

have searched and haven't succeeded in being able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable/deserving of an article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:44, 20 July 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. Wizardman 02:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISA – Intelligent Sensing Anywhere[edit]

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

Not certain about this one, as it may have sources in other languages. Current article has maybe one proper source; an analyst report that I cannot access to verify. I also note it is only a 120-person company. Worth keeping if anyone turns up sources, as there are none present the current article. CorporateM (Talk) 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. It looks like the article has included WP:NPOV advertorial content in its lead section for at least the past couple of years, despite multiple established Wikipedians having edited the article. It seems nobody really cares to fix the NPOV issue; so even sending the article to WP:Article Incubator won't help. (And soft deletion is too soft an option; even a zero-edit COI editor can take a soft deletion to REFUND.) If someone finds more sources (in any language) and commits to clean up the NPOV issues, they can visit Deletion Review, present their sources, get the article incubated or userfied, then fix up the article. But I think it's very possible that nobody is interested enough to bother properly fixing up the article. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:01, 23 July 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. Wizardman 02:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GreenNurture[edit]

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

I don't think the current article has enough salvageable material worth keeping. CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Let me add: The page also provides no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. (Dear non-Wikipedians: Please see WP:42 for a summary of that guideline.) And as well, the article has been tagged with {{advert}} since November 2012. That means it must have failed WP:NPOV for over six months. So it's easily possible nobody is interested in fixing the NPOV issues. If anybody wants to fix the NPOV issues later, they still can. They can get the article undeleted into the WP:Article incubator, fix the issues, then have the article moved back to mainspace. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:26, 23 July 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) 01:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musicoola[edit]

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

Has been flagged for two years for low notability. Does not appear to have any sources on the page and the company website has no media coverage on its press page. CorporateM (Talk) 02:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a published press release for their expansion into Hungary in 2008 but that was all. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find significant coverage for this subject to pass WP:NCORP. Gong show 12:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH for a Wikipedia article at this time. Zero reliable-source Google Books hits (four out of the five are Wikipedia reprints, and the remaining one doesn't appear to mention the company), and only a few GNews Archive hits with press releases and passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 21 July 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:CSD#G12. INeverCry (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goldtec[edit]

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

None of the sources in the current article support the subject's notability CorporateM (Talk) 03:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like a copyright violation of http://mysterglas.wix.com/goldtec-technologies don't know if it meets the speedy deletion criteria. There seems to be a separate company by this name selling bicycle parts, !voters should take this into consideration when searching for sources. 109.76.140.90 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I've nominated this article for speedy deletion (which is allowed even when an article is at AfD), because the text on the page (except for the infobox, section titles, refs and external links sections) is entirely a copyright violation of [25]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:37, 21 July 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 soft delete. As nobody has seen fit to comment over the course of two weeks I am treating this as equivalent to an expired PROD, in that it may be restored by simple request at WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Spring Break[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this film. The IMDb page lists 9 external reviews, but they are all unreliable sources. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:40, 20 July 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) 01:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RebarBID[edit]

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

The software is non-notable and the article is unreferenced. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking RS references. Search reveals no significant RS coverage. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:35, 20 July 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Hel[edit]

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

A search on Google for (him "live in hel") returned 156 results, and again (as I recently nominated Uncover… which had the same problems) most were torrent websites, fansites or YouTube videos. Those that were not were PR and did little to justify why the EP is so notable. (Here's an example.)Links used in citations appear to be dead, fansites or both. Again, it is my belief that a release like this belongs on Discogs, not here. LazyBastard Guy 04:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:38, 20 July 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) 01:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Ienner jr.[edit]

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

"Jimmy Ienner Jr. Was the Chief Photographer at Sony Entertainment". This blog says so. No other indications that this is so. (Note: the article is not about Jimmy Ienner) Shirt58 (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suppose it's barely possible. There's a notice "All pictures are by Jimmy Ienner, Jr., and © 2005 Columbia Records & Sony Classical" here, so he apparently has some connection with Sony, but so what? Even if he was chief photographer at Sony, that doesn't appear to mean much, as far as I can tell. Zero independent coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Name-searching is complex because of his father's similar name and rather more prominent career, but I found no reliable sources to indicate that the son is biographically notable. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 20 July 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) 01:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klebber Toledo[edit]

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

Minor actor lacking GHits and GNews of substance. Fails WP:BIO or any subcats. WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet WP:BASIC. Source examples include (all in Portuguese) [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Some of these are "gossipy" news pieces, but they appear to be from reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Northamerica1000, he appears to be some sort of celebrity in Brazil. Cavarrone 06:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yobo Gameware Co.[edit]

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

Company appears to lack any notability. I cannot find any reliable sources, only a few forum/blog posts. Most Google results are business directories or store fronts. -- ferret (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero Gnews Archive and GBooks hits. Custom searches (e.g. [32]) are not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. I found this Highbeam article, but it's basically a routine report about the company receiving a trademark. Otherwise, lots of forum and blog posts about this company, but lacking coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Waterloo. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imprint (newspaper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, in particular W:INHERITORG GeorgeFSmith (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge--It feels like the information on the Imprint page could be added to the U of Waterloo page with a minimum of fuss. RyanGrant (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Waterloo. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I don't think this nomination complies with WP:BEFORE. There may be student newspapers that are not in fact notable. Others, like the Harvard Crimson, unquestionably are, being more notable than many non-student newspapers. So, where does the imprint fit on this spectrum? Well:

The Imprint has a history of genuine investigative journalism, and some of its articles have been cited in scholarly works;
David Johnston, former President of the University of Waterloo was appointed Governor General of Canada. Notability is not inherited, and it could be argued that the Imprint's coverage of Johnston, while he was at Waterloo, would not make the paper notable -- unless mainstream journalists went over every issue of the Imprint looking for clues as to Johnston's character. But mainstream journalists did go over every issue, and sought out former Imprint editors -- which I suggest is a factor in its notability.
A Canadian engineer of Sri Lankan background had a work term in Sri Lanka in 2005. Upon his return to the University of Waterloo the Imprint repeated his account of working there when that huge Tsunami swept the Indian Ocean. It repeated that he set aside his work term job, while he joined efforts to try free those who were trapped, and joined efforts to try to make sure survivors were fed, housed, and got medical attention. It repeated his description of how everyone from all sides in the Sri-Lankan conflict suspended hostilities, and that he met and worked with elements of the Tamil Tigers during rescue efforts. This innocent account of an innocent temporary association with with the Tamil Tigers triggered an arrest by US counter-terrorism officials. Geo Swan (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Humphreys, Allison Hanes (2006-08-23). "Waterloo university grad was secretly working for Tamil terrorists, FBI alleges". National Post. Archived from the original on 2013-07-20. Retrieved 2013-07-20. In a February, 2005, edition of the Imprint, the student newspaper, Sriskandarajah tells of travelling to northeastern Sri Lanka with a group of 11 University of Waterloo students on a foreign aid mission, only to find themselves providing emergency relief when the Boxing Day tsunami struck.

Merge to University of Waterloo. Podrolled (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Waterloo. init512 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Waterloo. The events in the history section contributing notability (ones with citations to reliable sources) are as much about the University of Waterloo as a whole as they are about the paper, the one exception being the Tamil Tiger incident. This exception alone, in my view, doesn't merit a separate article, and could be adequately covered with a small mention on the merged page. Ebering (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Waterloo. John Ralston Galt (talk) 15:22, 25 July 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. Wizardman 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Storey[edit]

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

No attempt to establish notability as an academic or public figure with third-party sources. While falling short of being a strict attack, this article is a cherry picking of activities focused on industry affiliations. Even adding balanced material, notability is unlikely to be established. Novangelis (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about a Selected Publications section? Searching Google Scholar reveals 98 studies with her name on them. Doing the same with PubMed turns up 20 results. I personally respect her, given that she is a real scientist, but am also suspicious of how she often defends soft drinks while working for the ABA, which represents the companies that makes them. On another note, here is a biography on BusinessWeek, and she is quoted in this story. Furthermore, she is mentioned in Michele Simon's book Appetite for Profit on page 171. Jinkinson (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An h-index of 16 is a little low, but the APRE and ABA activities clearly pass WP:PROF #7. The fact that some people view those activities as bad just makes her all the more notable. -- 203.171.197.23 (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW she published a study concluding that "the association between SB consumption and BMI was near zero, based on the current body of scientific evidence." This study was pointed out by Kelly Brownell as an example of a study "that does not support a relationship between consumption of sugared beverages and health outcomes," which, he states, "tend to be conducted by authors supported by the beverage industry." [33] Jinkinson (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bio in business week is self-written. It's not an editorially revised work, and not a RS for anything disputable. It certainly does not contribute to notability , except to what may be inferred from the fact they included it at all. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on balance, I;d keep this. She's sufficiently important, and the best way of showing her possible bias is to include discussion of her publications in the article. When it comes to someone whose view are unpopular here, even when they're unpopular for very good reasons , we should try to counteract our own bias. DGG ( talk ) 08:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Archives Vol. 1[edit]

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

No information on this leaked upcoming album except for the tracklist MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS at this time. Gong show 12:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am pretty sure this is not even an official album, looks to be a random compilation mixtape someone made. Fails WP:NALBUMS anyways. STATic message me! 23:11, 21 July 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. Merge discussions can take place on the article's talk page. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conambo language[edit]

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

Hoax? Cannot verify existence. Google provides no hits outside of Wikipedia. Renata (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched "Conambo language" in Google and found some other sources after those that refer to Wikipedia like: http://www.ovguide.com/conambo-language-9202a8c04000641f800000000b3db39c. But I don't feel like they are that reliable and I'm curious as to why the author did not put any sources....—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 00:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Keep This book, "The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide," edited by Lyle Campbell and, Verónica Grondona, appears to be a reliable source and not a mirror of Wikipedia. It lists several scholarly works which have discussed it as a dialect or distinct language. It has also been spelled "Konambo." Without specifically addressing the possible Conambo dialect of Záparo, [34] says that Zaporo speakers in Ecuador declined from tens of thousands before the European invasions to a handful today, but they are recognized by the Ecuadoran government as an indigenous nationality. If we choose to get rid of the article despite being at least a recognized dialect once spoken in one village, we could redirect or merge to Zaparoan languages. Edison (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: just to confirm that the source you found is definitely a high quality one. Lyle Campbell is a prominent scholar in the field, and the authors he is citing are likewise well-respected specialists. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Záparo language since there's hardly anything about either of them, and it's probably best considered a dialect of Záparo. Angr (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Campbell and Grondona note, Loukotka posits Conambo as a distinct language. Kaufman treats it as a dialect, but then he also treats other lects we have separate articles on as dialects. For consistency, IMO we should keep Conambo as a separate article, since we don't follow Kaufman for the others. It doesn't hurt to have a stub on a subject there is little info on. — kwami (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Záparo language. Regardless of the precise nature of the relationship between the languages, there doesn't seem to be much to say about Conambo/Konambo/Záparo-Conambo, and only a handful of published sources. (At any rate, it looks like most everyone agrees that the article should not be deleted.) Cnilep (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kwamikagami. Merging to Záparo language is also an option. -- 202.124.73.17 (talk) 09:43, 26 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Randles[edit]

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

The vast majority of board game designers aren't notable. He's no exception. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevant Google hits, obituaries aren't reliable sources. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 01:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple design credits for multiple companies. Here's a profile. And here's another. Note that, as the person is dead, BLP considerations do not apply. Our editing policy is therefore to keep the material. Warden (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A profile by a game vendor and two lines by something called Board Game Geek. Does this really satisfy WP:BIO? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BoardGameGeek is "a resource without peer for board and card gamers, the recognized authority of this online community." It is an excellent source for our purpose. Your sneering is irrelevant per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Warden (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That wasn't sneering. This is sneering: The Board Game Geek entry, all two lines of it, is copied from the Wikipedia article.[35] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not sneering; I must do more work on that topic. I noticed the issue you raise when I looked at the profile but considered it unimportant in assessing notability as the significant point was that BGG considered this designer significant enough to have a profile, albeit of poor quality. But, if you want to see a better quality profile, then here's a third one. Finding these profiles is just a matter of searching - takes about 30 seconds. The ease with which coverage can be found further demonstrates the notability of the topic. Warden (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:USERGENERATED, "self-published media ... are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated." "The site is updated on a real-time basis by its large and still growing user base". Your first profile isn't neutral. I don't see anything in the third (maybe the pages I'm allowed to see are different than yours?). Clarityfiend (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple entries in that book - try page 133, which starts "Paul Randles was a manager for a games company..." For yet another profile, see no. 4. Warden (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Game Inventor's Guidebook is a good source, but Boardgamegeeks is not a reliable source. I don;t see any other significant coverage that would indicate that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. No indication of significance via WP:RS that would merit a separate entry. Eusebeus (talk) 17:28, 25 July 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fooling Ewe[edit]

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

Promotional article of a non-notable book. I prodded the article, but it was summarily removed by the author.

The article has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. There's nothing neutral about it, there is a single third-party reference mentioned (though I found the review, and it's hardly substantial), and it consists of just repeated outlines of the book. I feel like I've been generous by not just outright deleting it as spam.

I couldn't find much worthwhile for the article. The Facebook page has 3800 fans, while the Twitter page has 191 followers. A quick Google search nets 133k results, but I was getting false positives on the second page (and some of the other hits I was getting were of the Kickstarter for the book, rather than the book itself).

The author, TJ22 (talk · contribs), has no edits outside of promoting this book; aside from writing this article, he's also linked to his article from ewe [36] and word play [37]. He is also potentially 76.119.199.66 (talk), given that that's the only other substantial author of Fooling Ewe (assuming good faith, I'd say it's just him logged out, not a malicious effort to avoid scrutiny).

Promotion for this book has also spilled over to Commons. There, TJ22 has uploaded seven different images for the book; I've deleted five of them (I found the enwiki article while clearing out images on Commons that didn't have adequate permissions), and since those five were deleted, he's uploaded another two (duplicates of what I deleted) and restored them to the article.

Nothing against the book, but it just doesn't merit an article on Wikipedia at this time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BK. kashmiri ^TALK 20:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It skirst close enough to the advertising line that I would have nominated it for a speedy deletion for advertising. But as we are here at AFD, I'll go with regular delete. There is no signficant coverahe in independent reliable sources. The article makes claims for praise. I found the Stacy Juba review which is essentially a blog entry on her site and not a reliable source. I also found the NYParenting review which is all of 4 sentences long. I don't see this as compelling evidence of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 23 July 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.