Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 November	14 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Submachine (series). Any content that needs to be merged to the series' article can be recovered from history. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Submachine 3: The Loop[edit]

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

The Submachine (series) article is sufficient for Wikipedia. The Submachine Wiki at Wikia has an article on this game; Wikipedia doesn't need one. Any objections to deleting?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:38, 13 November 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) 01:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why would a redirect not be enough? Hobit (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone expect an actual article on this individual game?? I'm sure an article about the series is sufficient for Wikipedia. A re-direct would suggest that it's likely people would predict an article about the individual game. Georgia guy (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is one now, so whoever wrote it seemed to think it would be reasonable. So seems likely others would. The bar for a redirect is pretty low. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If your only problem is that another wiki already covers it, then why not delete anything to do with Marvel comics (The Marvel Comic database already covers them, after all) for example? Why doesn't Wikipedia need an article? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To add to what I said above, there is no guideline based reason not to keep it. "I want this deleted because it's already somewhere else" just doesn't cut it, in my opinion. If anyone can provide a guideline based reason to remove it, then I will change my vote accordingly. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (redirect) as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I see mentions or very short reviews, mostly discussed in context of series, but no in-depth sources to establish WP:NOTINHERITED individual notability. Re nominator's rationale: being on Wikia or having series article is of course not a reason to delete. Merging to series article would make sense if there was too little content here. Also, a redirect doesn't need to have the page to be a potential article, just a search target. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated Submachine 4: The Lab for the same reason. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd be wary of applying NOTINHERITED too broadly especially in the area of subjects only discussed in context with other subjects, but I haven't looked at any of the sources yet since I have no time at present. If all of the RS coverage is really very insubstantial, though, then this is reason enough to find that it fails to meet the GNG threshold. I'll trust Hellknowz' judgment, but I'd recommend a vote to merge rather than delete. -Thibbs (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Tausch[edit]

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

Badly written and edited, looks suspiciously like a CV, completely unsourced and finally fails WP:GNG big time. Gaba ^(talk) 23:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rather horrible unencyclopedic and promotional article. Tausch has a Google Scholar profile here. Neither the citation rates nor his h-index seem to indicate anything more than just borderline notability at best. The "sourcing" of the current article is a joke. I have to look a bit more to see if I can find anything else, but for the moment this does not seem to make the cut. --Randykitty (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Have not even looked at the article, but appears to pass on WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple books reviews.
- "Globalization, the human condition, and sustainable development in the 21st century; cross-national perspectives and European implications." Reference & Research Book News Aug. 2012. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
- "Titanic 2010?; the European Union and its failed Lisbon strategy." Reference & Research Book News Aug. 2010. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
- "Multicultural Europe; effects of the global Lisbon process, Muslim population shares and global development patterns 1990-2003 in 134 countries." Reference & Research Book News Feb. 2009. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
- Brunet, Ferran. "Roadmap to Bangalore? Globalization, the EU's Lisbon Process and the Structures of Global Inequality – Edited by A. Heshmati and A. Tausch." Journal of Common Market Studies. Jun2008, Vol. 46 Issue 3, p741-741.
- "Roadmap to Bangalore?; globalization, the EU's Libson process and the structures of global inequality." Reference & Research Book News Feb. 2008. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
- "From the 'Washington' towards a 'Vienna consensus'?; a quantitative analysis on globalization, development and global governance. (CD-ROM included)." SciTech Book News Dec. 2007. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
- "Against Islamophobia; Muslim communities, social exclusion, and the Lisbon process in Europe." Reference & Research Book News Nov. 2007. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
- "The Three Pillars of Wisdom?" Reference & Research Book News May 2003: 89. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
- "Globalization and European Integration." Reference & Research Book News May 2002: 72. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
- "Global Capitalism, Liberation Theology and the Social Sciences." Journal of Australian Political Economy 47 (2001): 148. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
- Cammack, Paul. "Towards a Socio-Liberal Theory of World Development." Political Studies 43.4 (1995): 730+. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
- "Towards a Socio-Liberal Theory of World Development." Journal of Economic Literature 32.3 (1994): 1358. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
- Zinam, O. "Towards and Socio-Liberal Theory of World Development." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries June 1994: 1630+. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Almost all of the books listed above by Green Cardamom are published by Nova Publishers: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. This is a questionable publisher with apparently no editorial filter which means pretty much everything is accepted for publication. A quick Google search brings up many issues with this company so a high count of books by this author published there should be taken with caution. Regards. Gaba ^(talk)

This could be true but it's not relevant: the reliability is different from the notability - we have many fringe authors who are unreliable, but notable. Likewise there are many self published authors who are notable. Wikipedia allows for authors to be notable so long as they have multiple book reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom is absolutely right. For all we care the books could be hand-written in 5 copies each, what counts is whether the books got noted, which is substantiated by reviews in reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if a review in Reference & Research Book News is really the kind of review we had in mind when we formulated WP:Author #3. My understanding is that Reference & Research Book News produces reviews of all books sent to them and the reviews are mere descriptive summary reviews. Some of the other reviews are in noted journals - but the couple I have looked at are also to my mind lacking. The review in the JEL is only a summary review 1 paragraph long and Cammack's review in Political Studies is also only one paragraph long (a long paragraph though) but reviews 3 books including Prager and Tausch's Towards a Socio-Liberal Theory of World Development.. This last book has in Google Scholar 45 cites but most of these are by Tausch. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Book News is a mainstream channel for information about new academic books. Their content is licensed by libraries, the big commercial databases like Gale etc.. it is not a vanity review operation, they have been around since the 1970s and are mainstream and well known in the industry. It is a reliable source, they review only a fraction of new books published each year. See NBOOK which says some reviews "should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." (assume NBOOK roughly applies to AUTHOR in regards to book reviews). Reviews don't all need be the opinion type, just some. Notability is less about the quality of the review as the mere fact it was reviewed in a reliable source. --Green Cardamom (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NBooks was, of course, written with popular books (like novels and such) in mind (and reviews in the NYT and such), not academic books. In social sciences and the humanities, books are often the major vehicle of academic production, not articles such as in the sciences. Therefore almost all books get reviewed somewhere (because before we had the Internet, that was the major way of bringing new work to the attention of other academics). I therefore think that for academics, NBooks needs to be applied a bit more strictly and the quality/length of a review certainly enters into the equation. I haven't made up my mind on this case yet, but if it is kept, it needs complete re-writing, checking of the sources to weed out overblown claims, and people should keep it on their watchlists given the pattern of SPA POV editing of the article (see also the previous AFD discussions). --Randykitty (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood what you're saying. These types of reviews are not limited to academic books, there is Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly for example who do much the same and are considered reliable sources. It is more than a pre-Internet vestige. The reviews provide a neutral, non-publisher affiliated summary of the book (and sometimes opinion) which are then used in many ways, by libraries, commercial book sellers (Amazon.com often reproduces these reviews). The content is licensed, sort of wholesaler to retail level - the reviews thus have a lot of exposure. Not every book gets reviewed, most books published are not reviewed at all, according to Virginia Tech University Library: "many books are published each year, only a small fraction of them are reviewed". Book News is the major reviewer of academic books, they have about 300,000 reviews since the 1970s, that is a lot but is also probably a "small fraction" of the academic book output during that period. My anecdotal experience of finding book reviews during AfD confirms not every book has reviews, in fact most don't (that show up at AfD anyway). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that all books are being reviewed. Clearly, in the sciences reviews are very selective. Novels don't all get reviewed either and Kirkus or Publishers Weekly obviously can review only a small proportion of books that are published. But in social sciences and the humanities, book reviews are much more common. For religion, for example, there exist whole journals that exclusively review books in that (restricted) field. Also, I expect that the books/authors that arrive at AfD are a selected sample of at least borderline notability and more likely to be among the few that are not being reviewed. --Randykitty (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Scrapes by on GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. In contrast to Xxanthippe, I think this falls just short of WP:PROF. However, to me this seems to scrape by WP:AUTHOR. Borderline notable. --Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Girdhar[edit]

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

This subject appears to fail WP:GNG. Citations used are either press releases or mere mentions. SarahStierch (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cxs107https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cxs107

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reference list looks impressive at first glance, but on clicking turns out to be press releases or trivial mentions. The related article Appy Pie, created by the same user, has the same issues; can it be added to this AFD? Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Appy Pie for deletion too (AFD link). Abecedare (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you see below references, then you will see following references are from highly reputable news sources where journalists have featured mentions about the Founder Abhinav Girdhar

http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2013/08/29/diy-mobile-app-developing-platform-appy-pie-secures-10000-on-kickstarter/ http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-13/news/39952444_1_greater-noida-delhi-ncr-e-cigarette http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/16/appy-pie-launches-its-cloud-based-mobile-app-creation-tool-with-opentable-and-soundcloud-support/ Cxs107 (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having Reuters or AP host a copy of your press release is not the same thing as significant coverage from those sources. Anyone can pay a newswire to publish their press release. The different between that and significant coverage in reliable sources is huge. Having read the sources in the article, those provided above and any I could find with a Google search, I couldn't find enough to justify WP:GNG. Stalwart111 06:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (no need to !vote twice) if you read the article carefully then you would have realized that the press releases were merely stating facts that the Individual founded these companies etc. and removing those references will not make much differences to the article, so I took your opinion and went ahead and removed those references, I would also like to mention one very important fact the article has a notable source as The Economic Times which is the India's most & world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper.Cxs107 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Economic Times article being cited does not even mention Abhinav Girdhar; it talks bout Rajat Girdhar, CEO of SMOKEFREE. There seems to be a mix-up in the wikipedia article and the Economic Times article should be removed as being irrelevant to the subject. Abecedare (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are just shooting in dark with an objective to get delete the page however if you read the article carefully there is a comment about Rajat Girdhar, then there is comment from Abhinav Girdhar as "Girdhar" and then comment from Rajat girdhar as "Rajat" the Journalist took comment from both the directors, you can refer to the below link to verify http://www.zauba.com/company/A-S-SMOKEFREE-ELECTRONIC-CIGARETTE-PRIVATE-LIMITED/U16000DL2011PTC221972 19:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cxs107 (talk • contribs)

That is not at all clear from the article - there is no way we could possibly verify your claim which is based on... I'm not sure what. You could just as easily claim that all references are to Rajat Girdhar to which the author refers by two different names. It's like claiming that in an article with quotes from Bill Gates, one of the quotes is actually from Melinda Gates because she happens to also be a director of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Have you any evidence at all beyond speculation? Even if it was Abhinav Girdhar that was being quoted, a single quote from the subject (not about the subject) certainly wouldn't be considered significant coverage for the purposes of WP:GNG. That article really isn't of much value for the purposes of this discussion. Stalwart111 04:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I exactly see where you are coming from and I am leaning towards your assessment after the example you quoted also I see that one of the other editors has already removed this articles reference, so I added a few more notable sources to make the article inline with guidelines laid down by WP. Cxs107 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did go through your original article and it did have several sources as paid press, however I see that you updated the article and to me your most updated article appears just fine. John Gilmour (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)— John Gilmour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Fine" by which standard, guideline or policy? Which examples of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources do you think allow this subject to pass WP:GNG? Stalwart111 03:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I verified the "Claims" of the sources and they match up, like the individual featuring in the article was indeed a speaker at SES http://sesconference.com/delhi/speaker-profiles.php#abhinav-girdhar and his company did win the red herring asia award http://www.redherring.com/events/red-herring-asia/2012-asia-top-100/ . John Gilmour (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And? Which of those things make him notable? The fact that his company (not him) was in a Top 100 list or that he spoke at a fairly routine industry conference? He exists and we can verify that. But that doesn't make him notable. Stalwart111 22:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has very little content, because the sources are basically mentions. There is not enough usable material here to write an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, particularly since the sources cited do not demonstrate intellectual independence and independence of the subject. The likelihood that future third-party sources will mention the subject or their application development platform is speculative. When those sources materialize , the article can be recreated (preferably by an unconnected editor). --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources identified are insufficient to meet WP:BIO. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Nicolini[edit]

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

Non-notable reporter; no in-depth sources available for this person who's got little more than some pictures in Playboy and a job. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some coverage but perhaps it is just a bit too soon. The source does say she is "uber popular" which suggests she may have acquired notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage does not rise above routine local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Many coverages including from sources like cbslocal and nydailynews--Paglatrump (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know how notable this is, but she has been nominated for New York Emmys. [9] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a program or a show is being nominated for the Emmy Awards that show or program might become notable, but the notability of the program or show doesn't rub off on every single member of the large team of people behind the show or program, so the nominations in that link don't make Jill Nicolini notable as a person, which is what counts here. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local reporter with nothing to support notability per WP standards. Just being a reporter doing her job isn't reason enough for having an article about her. The article is full of claims about her being nominated for three Emmy awards, having won multiple other awards etc, but all of the claims are unsourced. Which seems a bit odd to me, since finding reliable sources for stuff like that ought to be easy. Provided the claims are true, that is. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - She's not really known for being a traffic reporter; that's just the day job that got her some exposure. She's known for being a socialite (hence stories about what she wears while working in addition to what she actually says). Regardless, she passes notability requirements with flying colors:
- Playboy model (WP:PORNBIO #3: "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" -- I think a high profile reporter job in combination with her reality TV stints and other minutiae qualifies)
- I haven't looked hard enough to see if she won any Emmy awards, but she was definitely nominated several times (note: New York Emmy Awards, not the Primetime Emmy Awards): 2013, 2011, etc. (all of the previous few years -- which is probably sufficient for WP:ANYBIO on its own)
- In a few marginally worth mentioning movies e.g. Breaking Point
- finalist on the reality show Married By America (huge train wreck, but it was on FOX nonetheless -- piece about the finale)
- and of course NYC reporter (that there are many cites for this seems to have been established already)
- a couple minor items that might play a small role in an overall sense of general notability: scandal in her relationship with Anthony Cumia; minor non-network reality show --Rhododendrites (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - I've relisted this hoping to see some comments on User:Rhododendrites' argument for this articles inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Rhododendrites's sources. The award nominations are a good basis, and she's obviously done quite a lot of little things that add up to support general notability. Mabalu (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zahra Foundation[edit]

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

I see no evidence of notability for this regional Islamic center in Nottingham. None of the references are reliable sources for notability . I don;'t think this shouldhave been accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We regularly delete articles on local churches. I do not see why a local mosque or the foundation that runs it should be any different. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is certainly notable, in that this centre is the sole representative of an entire religious sect within Nottingham.

In regards to Peterkingiron, this is a non-argument, the fact that articles on local churches may be deleted does not necessitate that a page about a local mosque/ synagogue/ Hindu temple should be deleted as well. The question is: how is this article in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines? I quote this from the Wikipedia:Purpose page, "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." Please be specific in the justification of why this article should be removed. SayedUmaarKazmi (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2013 (GMT)

I stand by my case. You might as well say that a Pentecostal or Baptist church is notable, because it is the only one in town. The article might be merged into a wider article such as Islam in Nottingham, or a sentence in a religion section of an article on Nottingham. This is similar to a solution that we apply to Primary Schools, where we do not allow article on individual schools (save exceptionally), but allow a section in a wider article on schooling in the area or a schools section of a village article. I see no reason why there should be any difference between the treatment of Christian churches and the religious establishments of other religions and their sects. Typically, the local meeting place of religious beliveers is NN, save (perhaps) within the sect or the lcoality. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concede, Peterkingiron, this would in fact reduce the number of stub-articles created as well. However, this necessitates the creation of an "Islam in Nottingham" page, or something to that effect. SayedUmaarKazmi (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2013 (GMT)

Delete -- Agree with Peterkingiron's reasoning. Notability is in this case, as I see it, based only on "the only one in the entirety of Nottingham", which is not enough. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signifcant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 19 November 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. Feel free to renominate SarahStierch (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Tea Queens[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organisations. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There have been two previous AfDs, the second AfD closed Delete but was overturned in DRV[10] because the nom hadn't informed the original article creator, and new sources came to light. But subsequently no one added the sources into the article - I just did. I don't think this is a huge claim to notability but it's hard to vote Delete given what exists. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sweet Potato Queens. This group is a local chapter. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..a local chapter with media coverage. The local chapter clause doesn't trump existing media coverage for that local chapter. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:42, 13 November 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. KTC (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Washington[edit]

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

No establishment of notability. Person who played minor league baseball for a few seasons and that was it. Wizardman 19:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Breaking the color barrier in MLB is important. Breaking it in Kinston, NC is not so much. If there aren't sources to validate the importance of this individual, then we shouldn't have an article on him. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career minor leaguer who fails to meet WP:NBASEBALL. Co-breaking the color barrier on a particular minor league team, when the league was already integrated, is not enough.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – non-notable minor league player that doesn't satisfy WP:BASEBALL/N. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Abrams[edit]

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

Not Notable imho. Did not win any Jr Slam, never on the main tour (only tiny future tournaments), no davis cup, etc... Does not meet the extremely generous Tennis project guidelines for notability nor ntennis. Was he in some news papers... sure. Almost all future players get some coverage in their local papers, but not enough to meet gng. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, Speedy Keep, Snow Keep. Clearly meets wp:GNG. And meeting GNG is certainly sufficient for meeting our notability standards. "Being in some newspapers" is the core of GNG -- when there is significant coverage in reliable sources, that's when we consider a person notable. Here, there are hundreds of newspaper articles that cover him. A good number of articles devoted to covering him. See the articles found here and here. Including articles devoted to him, such as "ABRAMS MAKING SHORT WORK OF 14S", "ABRAMS STUNS TOP PAC-10 SEED", "ABRAMS DOMINATES BRILL IN BOYS` TITLE MATCH", "He's a big fish in a big pond; Geoff Abrams' steady improvement ranks him among best 4-year players in Stanford history" "Stanford's Abrams Is Historic", "ABRAMS PASSES FINAL EXAM", "Abrams Falls in Semifinals", "Abrams Still Has Moore's Number", "Abrams Easily Wins 16 Singles Title at Ojai", Abrams retires from pro tennis circuit", "Tournament Has Abrams Coming Back for More", "Newport Harbor's Abrams Stays Loose to Win Title", etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the nomination bases notability upon subjective personal opinion to a degree, and then conflates this opinion into an argument that the subject does not pass WP:NTENNIS or Wikipedia's General notability guideline. However, per the sources presented above by User:Epeefleche, the subject clearly passes WP:BASIC. Furthermore, media coverage of the subject is much more than local, with coverage in major U.S. newspapers such as The Los Angeles Times. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree on this assessment of subjectivity. This does not pass Tennis Project Notability Guidelines nor NSPORT. The Ojai tournament covered by the LA Times for 16 year old players happens multiple time per year. Nothing special here as this quality of player happens a lot. We may disagree on whether this person has general notability... that happens all the time at wikipedia... but it is not subjective based on wikipedia rules of protocol. I don't think this tennis player (which is the only reason he is being talked about here), per wiki notability, is notable for tennis at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck -- are you aware that if this meets wp:GNG, we don't even have to consider whether it meets any other guideline? Game over?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Game over? What's that supposed to mean? It's subjective that it meets GNG. I don't think it does since those items are done all the time on thousands of minimal tennis players. I see these uploads all the time and most of the time I get easy agreement...but not always. Sure, 100 editors could comment here and it could go your way, but then again it might not. I'm willing to wait and see what happens over the course of a week or so and see how many editors want 1000's of these type articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the worst AfDs I've seen in years from an editor with more than 10,000 edits. WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources ... it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...." It goes on to say: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." How can you possibly not view what you have been pointed to as satisfying GNG?

In fact -- it appears that you are rejecting GNG. Asserting that despite the overwhelming indicated RS coverage, including articles devoted to the subject, we should ignore GNG because "those items are done all the time on thousands of minimal tennis players." You don't get it -- GNG is the primary rule of notability. We don't second-guess it, and ignore it, because in our POV we think it is too broad, because it would include people who we in our POV believe are "minimal." For WP's purposes they are not "minimal." They are notable. Because they meet GNG.

That's why it's game over. End of story. Because it meets GNG. And your personal POV that GNG should not be followed where you find the person to be "minimal" is not how the Project -- by consensus -- works.

That why we don't even have to discuss your view that an individual who was US champion in junior singles, junior doubles, and college team, as well as ranked # 1 in the US in junior singles, junior doubles, and college doubles, is "minimal." Because its irrelevant. He meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness... someone needs some nice pills. As I said I'm willing to see what happens here, however lets get some facts straight. You mentioned Junior singles, junior doubles and #1 ranking in junior singles. That's not true. The ITF has their junior circuit and it doesn't say any of those things... so you are not telling the truth and making him appear better than he is. There are juniors and then there are junior boys of different ages and categories. At the Junior level ITF he reached a singles high ranking of 30 and a doubles high ranking of 27. At that junior tennis level he was 34-25 in singles, and 38-22 in doubles. There are thousands of players with this type of record. So please if you do need to go off topic and simply bash someone, get the facts straight. Your rampage is a bit much. As a tennis player this guy is a nobody. As for general notability... I leave that for others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to miss the point. He meets GNG. That is what matters. Once he meets GNG, with robust RS coverage, it matters not a whit what Fyunck thinks as to whether GNG is a good guideline, or the newspapers should have written those articles. He clearly meets the notability standard. End of story.

That's why it doesn't even matter, though for the record to clarify what junior means in this context, and to show the absurdity of your merit-less assertion that "Nothing special here as this quality of player happens a lot", he was

ranked # 1 in the U.S. in the Boys 14s singles
ranked # 1 in doubles in the USTA Boys' 16 rankings
the Boys 16 Doubles National Champion, with Michael Russell
the USTA National Indoor 18 Champion
competed in the 1996 juniors in the U.S. Open, French Open, and at Wimbledon
had a 26–0 record in singles in 1998, the best in Stanford men's tennis history
an All-American in singles and doubles
part of the # 1-ranked college doubles team in the nation, his senior year of college
the 8th-ranked college player in the U.S. in singles, his senior year of college
his college team won the NCAA national championship his freshman, sophomore, and senior years.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe little-leaguers are next up for articles. I see kids tossing no-hitters on tv which is covered in the press yet no article for the kid. Maybe these things are notable these days and wiki will soon see them as GNG. As I said... get your terms correct, try not to fabricate what I think, and relax. If it's an unbelievable slam dunk as you say, then there won't be anyone else saying to delete this... and no worries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a waste of the Project's resources -- our time -- for you to nomnate an article that clearly meets GNG. If you dislike GNG, go ahead and get consensus to change it. But please don't waste our time by nominating articles that clearly meet GNG, because you have a personal standard that says that significant coverage in reliable sources (which is indubitably what we have here) is not in your personal view sufficient ... whatever GNG says.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly have a difference of opinion, but you won't see me getting personal and making things up about you as you are doing to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boys, boys....there is no need to argue amongst yourselves. Make a well thought out argument and let it stand. Others will see it for what it is and take it on its merits. Bickering doesn't help either case, and it also is a waste of the project's time, for thoughtful editors and certainly the closer will feel the need to read all of it. That being said...
Keep Meets GNG, meets WP:NCOLLATH. I am kinda biased on the importance of it as a former Kalamazoo resident, but the National Junior and Boys Tennis Tournament is a pretty big deal. Winning that (and it being covered by the media, which of course it is) is a fair indication of notability in and of itself. John from Idegon (talk) 04:10, 14 November 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 as A7/G11 (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aviendo[edit]

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

This article is far too promotional in my opinion. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- article fails notability criteria for WP:CORP. My online search of Danish sources found no significant independent coverage of this company. (In fact, I see nothing on the page which would have prevented this article from being speedy deleted per WP:A7.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article with a promotional tone by a WP:SPA, sourced only to the firm itself. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (I have also tagged it CSD A7 and G11.) AllyD (talk) 19:09, 13 November 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 per WP:SNOW. Dr. Blofeld has easily improved the article to the point of acceptance. (non-admin closure) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Festival Theatre, Malvern[edit]

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

I'm unable to find substantive treatment of this venue in reliable, independent sources—just the directory entries, performance listings and reviews, and promotional material one would expect for any theater. It is only one part of a larger complex known as Malvern Theatres, which itself lacks an article, having only a redirect to Great Malvern. Since the article deals less with the venue that's its ostensible subject than with a particular play that was once performed there and since there's no evidence that there's anything noteworthy about the theater qua structure, the topic seems to fail WP:N. Deor (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like there's a lot of coverage in google books. The very notable Bernard Shaw obviously thought it notable enough to premiere several of his plays in the 1930s. Another "the article is short with undue weight" it automatically must not be notable type of AFD... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Malvern Theatre and the associated festivals are extensively documented in the literature, for example here. --Ipigott (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've added all I could find from books, I see 864 hits in HighBeam research. Those combined with other web sources and the official site with more details on history and productions I reckon I could produce a GA quality on this by the end of the month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now that Dr. Blofeld (instead of writing an acceptable article in the first place) has flooded the article with text supported by "references" that relate to the Malvern Festival (which may indeed be notable but which is not to be identified with this theater building), that are mere passing mentions (most of them), and that do not directly support the statements they are attached to (see the reference currently numbered 1), I can see that there is no way this article is going to be deleted, even though at bottom it is just as crappy as it was to begin with. Nothing has been proved here but the ability of a Wikipedia administrator, in his role as an editor, to completely obfuscate an article with no possibility of being called to task for his misdirection and evasion. I'd withdraw the nomination were it not that I have a slim hope that someone visiting this AfD would have a crazy notion to actually check the references to see whether they actually support the notability of the theater building itself. Deor (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The festival and the theatre cannot be detatched. Along with the surrounding gardens it's the main venue for it and has been since it was founded in 1929. The fact that you nominated this and have left such a nasty remark here and talk page message telling me to not expand this further and add more crap tells me a lot about you, and wikipedia is better off without your malicious sort. Anybody feel free to check my work. The fact is this is an obviously notable theatre venue/establishment in western England and has an important place in the history of Shaw, Elgar, Priestley and others and I think I've done a damn good job in expanding this within a short space of time. My apparently false ref 1 was from the Great Malvern article and links to the main page rather than the history page, it was a stray ref, I never add citations to the lead unless it is an important fact like the 19 Shaw plays and 6 premiering there, which is now ref 1 if you'd like to confirm by doing a google book search.. The theatre has masses of sources in HighBeam [11] which extensively document developments to the building or productions put on here. I was just getting started with the history of the place. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough good sources here to justify an article. Deor, although people may be disagreeing with you, perhaps you could just try and keep AGF in mind when responding? Your post above comes across as quite aggressive, even if that wasn't your intent. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "aggressiveness" in my post was certainly intentional. That a very experienced editor (an admin, no less) would create a manifestly unsuitable article, with no relevant sources, let it sit for seven months, and then immediately flood it with dubiously relevant junk when it is nominated for deletion does tend to get on my nerves. If an editor is not willing to actually write an article in the first place, he should just forbear from posting one. Deor (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a start I've never been an administrator and would never wish to be, not sure why that would matter anyway. I created it purely because I was clearing red links in the Clive Mantle, an article which I bothered to "actually write to GA "in the first place" when I could have left Mantle's article as a shoddy stub, and I thought it would be more productive to blue link red links with some text and a source rather than shut off the links entirely. Other editors are free to expand the stubs I created. Why should I have to expand everything to FA standard here. especially as my writing is apparently "junk" and I'm apparently incapable of correctly writing and sourcing an article anyway. You've completed contradicted yourself Deor. If I'm a poor editor as you profess wikipedia would be safer and better off without me writing don't you think? I'm guessing given that you seem to edit geo articles and coordinates your perception of me and my work is rather more deep-rooted and you've detested some of the admittedly shoddy short stubs I created a long time ago which should probably be deleted or redirected. The reality is that you're pissed off with me Deor not really because of the original article, but because you have a long standing issue with me as an editor and because I've clearly shown you up in proving that this more than meets guidelines and I have support for it when you were looking forward to deleting one of my articles. Think what you like of me, I doubt many people here would consider my expansion in good faith today to be as disastrous as you claim. By all means somebody check what I've written in google books and show me to be wrong. The fact is that the theatre and festival go hand in hand.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There really no need for the aggressiveness though: what does it achieve, except to rile others? There are much bigger issues on wiki that could or should inflame the passions and what was created did qualify under WP:STUB as being acceptable. It's a big enough place with enough other problems that need looking into to get too hot under the collar. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources. The current building is itself clearly notable, but a theater is much more than a building, as this article amply demonstrates. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic appears to meet WP:GNG, although of course the article can and should be improved. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than enough RS; it meets WP:GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per above. Given the sources available on this notable theatre, it wouldn't take much for it to be taken past stub class. --Cassianto ^Talk 10:10, 14 November 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. KTC (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compactinitic 1137[edit]

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

Unverifiable (not a single source could be found for "Compactinitic 1137". If not a hoax, then totally lacking WP:Notability. Fram (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search brings only mirrors. Also, if this isn't wp:madeup, it is at best up-and-coming or crystall-bally given "The foundry is currently trying to develop..." Chris857 (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sub-literate commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: a search of the Vanguard Foundry's website brings up nothing similar. (I suspect that the reference to sulfur is a misinterpretation of chemical symbol Si as S. I don't thing anyone puts sulfur in steel, and the tone of the article looks more uninformed than fraudulent.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and looks very much like a hoax particularly with zero hits, outside Wikipedia and mirrors, on 'Compactinitic'. However, we are six days into the AFD so it looks best for this to now run its course. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OmniRom (operating system)[edit]

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

delete, sources found appear mostly promotional or connected to subject[[12]], [[13]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ffs, I've only just started the page. Do you expect it to be fully formed and referenced on creation? Alex (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, however that doesn't matter much cause it's just my opinion. I also expect that even if its not referenced a simple search would be enough to show notability but I didn't find that when I looked. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - AFD Nomination created 2 minutes after the article was created. From WP:BEFORE: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered by The Register, International Business Times, and Android Authority. Android Authority looks like a more-or-less reliable source. I think new articles should have references, too, but sources do seem to exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the source finds by NinjaRobotPirate. A quick Google search with "OmniRom" android turned up the same sources, as well as announcements on quite a few other Android news sites. Although this is a new system, it is already notable and will likely get more so over time. The article itself seems not too promotional and is well-sourced for a new stub. A notable topic and a well-formed article suggest keeping it. --Mark viking (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE, although the article was deleted during the discussion as a hoax under CSD:G3. Bilby (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Debus[edit]

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

Delete, the subject is not the subject of the sources provided and "great potential" doesn't equate to notability Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, fails WP:POLITICIAN and every other test. Sources are non-specific. Blatant self-promotion. WWGB (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is this political "rising star" old enough to vote? Fails WP:V and WP:POLITICIAN. Without the bogus references, this is an unsourced and unverifiable BLP. No reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable achievements. suspected WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly obvious delete. Clear WP:AUTOBIO, failing every conceivable notability guideline. (As an aside, I wonder if he's related to Bob?) Frickeg (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no notability (even possible hoax), references are faked, google search gives zero good results. --Soman (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Per everyone above and WP:WoT. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and possibly even WP:GNG and WP:BIO since, beyond telling us he's a "rising star" in the party the article doesn't explain why he's notable. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and possible hoax....William 14:24, 15 November 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. (CSD G11) As DGG says, there may be an article to write on this topic, but this isn't it. It is unadulterated promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange 2.0[edit]

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

Virtusl exchange might be a good topic for an article. This article,is however a promotion for one particualr initiative, and consists almost entirel y of general background and a list of who spoke at their various events, which is trivial coverage. As would be expected for such content, written by a paid promotional editor. This indicates a common problem with such editing: instead of a decent article that a NPOV editor would write on something good and interesting, we have this relatively useless propaganda. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:28, 13 November 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. KTC (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniels Kristapsons (Ernestovskis)[edit]

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

Non notable? Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found some listings for this person (shown as "ERNESTOVSKIS Daniels") on the Union Cycliste Internationale website using this search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only coverage is a list of results and no noteworthy performances to show notability. Ranking below 600 on the European tour is an example of non-notable performances.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 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. KTC (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubizzle[edit]

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

One of the millions of non-notable startups. In any case the content is sub-encyclopedic standard. Tobias1984 (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable startup. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers

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. A9 eligible now that the band article has been deleted. --BDD (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Hands[edit]

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

Non notable album. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. Press releases and promo videos are not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say redirect to As_Artifacts#Discography but because the band is actually non-notable as well, it would be pointless. Google News searches found nothing and additional different searches provided nothing either. One small review doesn't help much. Nothing else to improve this article. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gadsen Records[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Sourced by things that are not about them, that don't mention them . Notability is not inherited from who they don't work with. A look at the current sourcing [14]:

1 - Passing mention "The Darlings' debut LP release, 'The New Escape', due out April 24th on Gadsen Records/UMG"

2 - Dead link, was about The Darlings, not Gadsen. Not a reliable source.

3 - About the CEO, focusing on football. no mention of Gadsen. not good enough for notability for him (afd)

4 - About the CEO, focusing on football. no mention of Gadsen. not good enough for notability for him (afd)

5 - Dead link. About football not music.

6 - No mention of Gadsen. Do not verify claims made. Claims made are not about Gadsen but about the Vice President.

7 - No mention of Gadsen. Do not verify claims made. Claims made are not about Gadsen but about the Vice President.

8 - Unrelated to Gadsen.

None provide any depth of coverage about Gadsen Records. A search found nothing to show notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsure why all those sources were added when most of them aren't related to Gadsen Records. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On top of the reasons listed above, the band most closely associated with the label is also lacking notability, so there appears to be no industry impact. I realize this is not a policy-based argument, but I'm trying to formulate a potential notability policy regarding record labels (part of what I want to accomplish for WP:RECORD LABELS) and this wouldn't meet the criteria. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't provide "significant coverage" of the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like a pretty solid source. http://organicamusicgroup.com/our-artists/ 12:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.210.155 (talk)

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. Speedy deleted, hoax Jac16888 ^Talk 17:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Gnus[edit]

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

Article suspected of being a hoax. Referenced to 'Koran and Bible'. Improbable story of an agent. Nothing relevant on Google. Written in Croatian or Serbian - Croatian works for translation. Peridon (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I stopped short of calling it a hoax and speedying it because the Google translation could have just been completely terrible. But based on the translation of the article at a stage where an IP user had added material to it that was in the same vein[15] (which someone reverted for some reason, without explanation, as though the addition was more problematic than the origin content!), he was born in Tel Aviv, but somehow wound up in a German concentration camp even though it also says he moved to Germany after the war. Then there's the business of having killed "10512 thousand" [sic] Nazis and of having gone to 17 high schools (one of which he is now attending at the age of 85) and of being in love with a first-grader 70 years his junior. If someone who can read Croatian confirms that this is nonsense, speedy would be nice. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killing 10512 would be hard enough for a single operator. I don't know what the world record is for personal killing without using aids like weapons of mass destruction or having a large staff to marshal the victims into line. I also find that his professional soccer career ending before the war as being doubtful - as in 1939 he would have been all of 11. Mossad didn't exist until 1949. The story gets worse - our subject is now meeting Hitler three times, killing him in 1945 (when Gnus would have been 17). This is heading rapidly for speedy land. Peridon (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I removed a chunk of poetry as copyvio based on the date of birth before I looked closer at the thing. If this is genuine, that removal is valid. If not, it goes anyway... Peridon (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is written in so-called 'trimmed latin' Serbian (using only ASCII characters) and it's obviously hoax made out by user. For instance, 'the article' says 'he was born in 1928 etc. and he attended 8 high schools by now and he is currently attending Third Belgrade gymnasium (...) he killed 11000 Nazis in WW2 to get his revange, he is currently in a relationship with 15-year-old girl despite their 70 years difference... Obviously nonsense, vandalism and hoax. I proposed the article for speedy deletion. Alex^{discussion ★} 15:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And references are: "kuran i biblija", which means: "Quran and Bible". I think an admin could warn the user and notify him that these kind of jokes aren't funny. Regards. Alex^{discussion ★} 15:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's stopped editing it - and he's probably got the message now from his user page. Whoever deletes it will probably leave a warning. If they don't, I will. Peridon (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Snow delete. For all the above reasons.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 13 November 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Papua New Guinea relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. There is no evidence of close relations as the article claims. No significant trade, migration, no embassies. The article hinges on 2 statements "There are claims that say that the Papuan people is the descendant of a lost tribe of Israel" which is simply a theory and the factoid that one leader planted a tree! LibStar (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the lost tribes of Israel stuff could be removed, but the State of Israel actually invests a lot of attention to building diplomatic relations with countries like PNG. --Soman (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

where are the sources to demonstrate "Israel actually invests a lot of attention to building diplomatic relations with countries like PNG" LibStar (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: some coverage [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65] --Soman (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=le_PMaM7QXYC&pg=PT299 describes the early phases of Israeli-PNG diplomacy. --Soman (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=_edpSrtACq0C&pg=PA14 lists PNG as a buyer of Israeli arms. --Soman (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two have full diplomatic relations at Ambassadorial Level, that is notable enough on it's own. This article is a stub which means it is small, but it also leaves room for expansion. I see no valid reason for this article's deletion. IJA (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

simply having (very tiny) relations does not confer automatic notability. the reason for deletion is lack of coverage. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Have you found any coverage? There are no resident ambassadors which is a sign of a lack of relations. LibStar (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by User:Soman. Many more can easily be found on GNews. The PNG prime minister visited Israel less than a month ago. Pburka (talk) 00:53, 14 November 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 Katikati#Education. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matahui Road School[edit]

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

Non-notable tiny school. The references don't appear to actually be about the school. PROD removed without improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Western Bay of Plenty District where it should be given a very short mention. Unfortunately this is a classic example of a good faith creation that simply just does not meet our criteria for notability at WP:GNG or WP:ORG. However, according to the long-standing precedent documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS, it can be blanked and redirected without deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Western Bay of Plenty District#Education~~ Katikati#Education where I have merged to a short section. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Katikati, where it is already mentioned along with two other schools. In New Zealand, District Councils have no responsibility for education, and listing only this school at Western Bay of Plenty District does not seem appropriate. According to List of schools in the Bay of Plenty Region#Western Bay of Plenty District (which is subdivided by district solely to prevent the list from being too long), there are 25 schools in the district.

Ah! Thanks for this. I have moved the merged material to Katikati#Education. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:45, 14 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hartamas Shopping Centre[edit]

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

This Run-of-the-mill shopping center has no coverage in reliable sources to indicate its notability. It fails the GNG. The single source in the article is a dead link, and I could find no other coverage. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 06:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As is usual with malls this small that lack unusual coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete lacking significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't even see anything to support a redirect to either Sri Hartamas or Kuala Lumpur. A Google News search provided some results but mostly small mentions in listings. I even performed a search at newspapers Malay Mail and The Star (there are a couple of The Star results in that Google search) which didn't find anything different. Some of these news articles mention local market and holiday events but hardly anything appropriate for an encyclopedia. It's nice it's received some local coverage but not the sufficient amount required for a good encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Questionable notabiligy + Dead link reference make this a unfortunate delete. Hasteur (talk) 21:20, 20 November 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. Does not look promotional anymore, but still fails the notability criteria.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightened Life Fellowship Church[edit]

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

Only 10 Google results. [66] Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG as every one of them is a primary source. Looks very promotional as well. Jinkinson talk to me 01:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent Google hits at all. -- 101.119.15.84 (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't expect much in the way of Google hits for it - it's only been been up and running for about a week. I don't know much about American Christian ministers/pastors or whatever, except for what I see here. I will say I've not come across one before who was a "Certified Reiki Master, Iridologist, Aromatherapist and Master Herbalist" though. I don't think that affects the notability of the Church anyway. Peridon (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. unsigned post by Tom Morris. Peridon (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional tone and primary sources, not to mention the second paragraph is complete fluff. Unsurprisingly, Google News and browser searches provided nothing aside from their website. Out of the current references, only one is not primary and that's the Secretary of State ID which basically means nothing to an encyclopedia. Their website says it's based in Colorado Springs so I searched with that but found nothing aside from primary again, a new local church probably wouldn't receive that much attention anyway. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the comments that were made concerning reasons for deletion, which were emailed to me.

I must state my case and would appreciate this being shared. We are a new Christian Denomination with a a home base in Colorado Springs, CO. We are now training ministers, who are currently ordained within the United Church of Christ and the Metropolitan Community Church, who will be opening 4 new churches in Wyoming, Kansas, Pennsylvania and California. The page is not fluff. It is exact information about who we are. Martin Luther, upon separating and starting his own following was no different than we are now. The amount of google hits that a website has had should not determine the value of information on an institution. The page is NOT promotional in any way shape or form. It is meant to be strictly informative. With new churches opening and our community efforts, we want people to be able to research us in as many ways as possible. We may be considered a local church at this point and time; however, the Metropolitan Community Community church would have been considered local as well and look how that denomination has grown. Within the next 8 months we will be fully registered with the Colorado Department of Higher Education as a Seminary. We are simply waiting for the finalization of the donation of the school property to go through. When it comes to the notability of a Church it is that it serves the greater good. I can supply a plethora references from pastors across the country stating as to how Pastor Charter and I have been doing just that in our decades of ministry. As far as what is relevant for an encyclopedia ..... any all and any information, no matter how mundane it may seem. I my self have researched Wikipedia for information I knew I would find no where else. As far as being a Certified Reiki Master, Iridologist, Aromatherapist, etc. bringing notability to the church, for the many spiritual healing and self help awareness beliefs we have these areas bring much notability to the denomination and the church. There are MANY pastors who are Reiki masters, iridologists and such! Just because one has not met one does not mean we do not exist. We not only help people on their spiritual path but we help them learn to help themselves. I ask that you and the board of reviewers, please, make a decision to keep the article; and as we grow and are able to help communities across the county, more information can be added. Yes, we are a new denomination. Yes, every denomination/church starts small. However, our credibility comes from our many years of independent service, our focus on expansion, our desire to help people without a "what's in it for me" attitude. I aske that you make a decision to give us a chance. If your decision is to stay with the deletion of the article, I can do no more than to honor that decision; however, I would hope that you would see even though we are new. We deserve the opportunity to be researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear80905 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your extensive comment and your contributions. By fluff, I meant the paragraph that starts with "The statement of faith" because listing the church's religious views aren't necessary for an encyclopedia especially because we try and keep things neutral here. Some people may not want to hear the church's entire philosphy and the like. I understand if you didn't make the article intentionally for promotional purposes but with the lack of even one or two local news articles (third-party), it comes off as promotional and all relies on the church website. It's hard to make a Wikipedia article for churches sometimes because they don't get that much in-depth news coverage (mostly holiday events, donations, etc.) except megachurches. To accustom yourself with the guidelines, consider visiting my page for new users here. If you need any further help, feel free to contact me directly at my talk page. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that paragraph as a clear WP:COPYVIO -- 101.119.15.117 (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic appears to not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, as source searches have not produced any third-party coverage in reliable sources. For example, there are zero GNews and GBooks hits, other than the Wikipedia article itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you (SwisterTwister) for your help and in put! I read your page a few times. I am going to re-write the article with information gathered from some old interviews and current ones. I will also build upon the definition of the denomination, rather than the statement of faith. I will also ask for outside input. If you think that this will help, with the correct references included, please let me know. It is my desire to meet your expectations. Thank you! [User:Bear80905|Bear80905] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear80905 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources first. -- 101.119.15.117 (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changes have been made - still looks promotional. And there are still no reliable independent sources. The one independent one goes to something that looks like a State registration lookup. Can't show notability. Peridon (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Not surprising for a church that was formed a couple of weeks ago. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 19 November 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 (per G11) by admin Jimfbleak (non-admin close). Stalwart111 12:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leana greene[edit]

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

BLPPROD removed by creator after adding new sources and links. Ostensibly an advertisement for kidsinthehouse.com masquerading as an autobiography. The awards cited are to the company/website and not to the individual. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 13 November 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. Author requested deletion. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Service Protocol Oriented Architecture[edit]

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

Part of a series of articles created by or edited heavily by an editor as part of what appears to be a campaign to make his scientific papers have wider coverage. The sole references are primary sources and this is very much a non notable COI based piece of self advocacy. Fiddle Faddle 00:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first book cited as a reference. Handbook on business information systems, is held by 468 libraries according to WorldCat and is published by ‪World Scientific‬, while the second one, Cloud computing and services science, is held by 241 libraries, and is published by ‪Springer Science+Business Media‬. Both publishers are notable. I am not familiar with the subject of the article, but I think that the references are enough to establish notability, despite the conflict-of-interest concerns that have been raised. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two sources written by the one author who invented the subject cannot possibly be construed as "independent significant coverage". We need multiple, independent, reliable sources and for the purposes of WP:N, multiple sources from the same source are considered one source. The notability of the companies that published the sources isn't really relevant. Wikipedia is not a host for things someone invented one day. I can't find any evidence that anyone other than the person who coined the term has actually used it or provided it with significant coverage. Coverage of a person's idea by that person is not coverage for our purposes. Stalwart111 01:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Author has requested deletion in this diff. I have suggested that they place the correct speedy deletion criterion at the head of the article, which they may do. It was important to brief people here with the diff. For avoidance of doubt, I am not the author. Fiddle Faddle 12:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7, as author requests deletion. Alex^{discussion ★} 14:15, 13 November 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.