Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 November	4 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 Halifax Regional School Board. Consensus and jurisprudence to redirect (non-admin closure) ES &L 12:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herring Cove Junior High[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE research but cannot find the sources to meet WP:ORG. Suggest redirect to Halifax Regional School Board. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools. Redirect target is identified above. Carrite (talk) 06:20, 9 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 hoax. I can find nothing to suggest that this group actually exists, let alone are notable enough for an article. Considering that there were multiple attempts to re-add this page back in 2007 by the same person, I'm salting this to prevent further attempts to recreate the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centerville Delinquints[edit]

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

An elaborate hoax article (actually reported via OTRS) about a "gang" that has its headquarters in Centerville, Utah, which is an upper/middle class town of less than 20 thousand people, so it's a little hard to believe that a two major gangs would exist there. In any case, it's impossible to verify the existence of either the "Delinquints" or their enemies, the "Iragazzi". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Glane23 placed a hoax speedy on the article just before my AFD nomination - I'll leave it to sysops to determine if a discussion is needed. Otherwise this can be closed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:31, 3 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. Consensus is to keep at this time (non-admin closure) ES &L 12:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statistica (journal)[edit]

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

Statistical journal of unclear notability that was established in 1931. Notability tag removed by article creator, arguing that the journal meets WP:NJournals#3: "The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history". I gingerly suggest that this is not the same as a long history and don't see any evidence of an "historic purpose" or a "significant" history. Despite its longevity, the journal is not indexed in any selective databases, nor do there seem to be any independent sources. In view of this: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the article creator. I removed the Notability tag after challenging the tag itself with Criteria 3, as Randykitty explained. I'm looking for external sources for that. The journal clearly had more readers and importance in the past that nowadays, that's for sure. I would keep it, but of course I'm biased (as I created it in the first place :-). --Aubrey (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a Repec citation, and a even more strong statement :-) I discovered this source: Encyclopedia of statistical sciences, vol 8, Samuel Kotz & Norman L. Johnson (eds), Wiley, New York, 1988, pp.633-634. The problem is that it is a paper volume, but I have scanned the pages. Do you want to see them? i can provide a Dropbox link. Aubrey (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think RePEc is very selective, see this page. The mention in the encyclopedia is potentially more interesting. If this is not available somewhere online (I don't see it in Google Books), then perhaps a Dropbox link would be good. 5provided I can access this anonymously). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should see this. I don't know if you can access anonymously though (I bet so, but I'm not an expert). The link is public. Aubrey (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that, saves me a trip to the library :-) Did you notice that the entry on Statistica is written by (the then editor-in-chief) Italo Scardovi? The piece does indeed not really read like a neutral encyclopedia entry. So I'm afraid that neither RePEc (not selective) nor this encyclopedia (not independent) add to the possible notability of this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This book looks like a reliable source to me and has nontrivial information about the journal. Additionally, doi:10.1410/34279 may also have some relevant information, but I don't have free access to it so I can't tell for sure. And this popular press article mentions Fortunati's founding editorship of the journal but without much detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting finds (you're a better sleuth than I am :-). The abstract for the doi that you gave can be seen here. I don't have access to the full text either. The press article indeed is just an in-passing mention. The book look like a reliable source, but unfortunately doesn't get beyond an in-passing mention either. It's weird that it is so difficult to find something about such an old journal... --Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to access that document from my university, tomorrow. I've seen now that the editor-in-chief is the author of the entry in the Encyclopedia. That makes it nNPOV, I understand, but let me say that the fact that the entry exists is more NPOV. I mean, the curators of the encyclopedia decided to have that journal in it, and then asked a presentation from the editor-in-chief. I guess this is what pretty much happened. Anyway, always better to find other sources. Aubrey (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the popular press article is from the magazine of the University of Bologna. Fortunati will get the name of a road, in Bologna (a flag of notability, if you will :-) Aubrey (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! But for Fortunati, not the journal, I fear... --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've found the article you mentioned, La Statistica nell’Università di Padova: un percorso emblematico dalla Restaurazione all’età repubblicana, but it's in Italian. You can access it here. There is a bit of the story of the journal (previously called Supplemento statistico ai nuovi problemi di Politica, Storia ed Economia). We now have 2 external neutral sources that cite it, and the entry on the Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (which, altohugh is a reliable source by itself (as an entry of a famous encyclopedia of statistics) is written by the editor-in-chief). I'm not sure I will find other sources. Aubrey (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading that. I don't speak Italian, but can read it a bit. Yes, the journal is mentioned. However, I see two problems. First of all, the journal this article is published in (Rivista di storia economica) does not seem to be notable itself. Second and (much) more importantly, this is again not an independent source as at least one of the authors (the second one) is a member of the editorial board of Statistica. So we have 1 independent source (the book found by David Eppstein) that mentions the journal in-passing, and 2 non-independent sources, that can be used to source uncontroversial stuff, but don't contribute to notability. I'm sorry, I don't want to be obtuse, but I'm not swayed by the argument that the encyclopedia entry indicates notability, solely on the basis of the editors having asked the EIC of Statistica to write a few paragraphs about his journal. --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep—Unlike Randykitty, I am persuaded by the references currently in the article, and I think they are enough to satisfy the GNG. The fact that articles were written by the journal's editor doesn't matter that much to me, because they are not WP:SPS. The articles were reviewed and supposedly verified, before being published in other journals. In a recent AfD on a different article on an obscure and obsolete programming language, a source was found - an article written by the programming language's author. However, this article was published in Byte magazine, a quite reliable source with editorial oversight, so the article was universally accepted as reliable. Same story here. If the articles offered as sources were published in Statistica, then they'd be totally unreliable. However, their being published in other journals makes them totally reliable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never claimed the sources were self-published or unreliable. I do maintain that they are not independent, which is something different. The comparison with a computer language is not completely apt either. If I do research and report on that in a scientific journal, that is perhaps not the same thing as writing a blurp in an encyclopedia on my own journal. If I report on my research, I have no qualms noting possible weak points or alternative explanations of my results. If I write about my journal, I may perhaps make it look a bit more important that it is, or not mention some skeletons that may be hidden in some cupboard. I doubt that such a short blurb in an encyclopedia would be scrutinized the same way as other content. As for the journal article, the journal in which that was published would probably not pass WP:NJournals itself... --Randykitty (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The reliability of the sources discussed above (regardless of their independence) gives us enough information to actually write an article. As for notability, for me the longevity of the journal tips the balance in its favor. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 10 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) 00:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GridPP[edit]

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

Non-notable scientific project. The only apparently independent ref is the BBC one, and that's a repackaging of a press release at http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2006-05/ppa-ugh050306.html Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was initially completely perplexed by this nomination, wondering why the various scientific papers were being ignored. However, I see WP:Notability, in requiring independent sources for notability, says ' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent' and perhaps the nominator is regarding the co-authors of the scientific papers as being the "producers", and they may be affiliated with the topic. However, I think the guideline is trying to say that the journals' editors and publishers must not have an affiliation. Whatever, if the guidelines suggest this sort of topic is not notable, the guidelines are inappropriate in this case, and I choose not to accept their guidance. Thincat (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked some more at the independence and affiliation aspects, considering just the first two references. (1) has countless authors employed by 19 organisations. Possibly two organisations are closely affiliated with GridPP. The rest are universities, users of the system but their researchers will also have been collaborating over the development of the grid. Maybe none of the authors are employed by GridPP. (2) has 15 authors from eight institutions two, maybe three, institutions may be closely affiliated. The rest are university workers. But is any of that relevant? If a newspaper publishes an article it will go to the same sorts of people for its information. It will take its own decision whether or not it is worth publishing (as the Institute of Physics and the Royal Society have done). The journals will have sent the papers for review and taken any editorial decisions they regard as appropriate. The notability guidelines are too blunt to adequately deal with the subtlety of the situation. Thincat (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this one is harder to call, although the "blunt" guideline is what we have agreed to with consensus as a guideline. This seems somewhat related to National Grid Service which was up for speedy deletion in 2007, worked on a little to be rescued at the time, and then sat around until the subject was renamed and seems to have run its course in the meanwhile? Not sure of the exact relationship of these entities are to each other, but maybe something like merge them all together into something like UK National Grid Initiative might be an answer? Although that web site http://www.ukngi.ac.uk/ does not give much information so not sure if that would be appropriate either. We do need to cover this, but just a list of universities that were on the group's web site in 2011 might not be worth keeping (and clearly 2011 is no longer "current" so the dated language needs to go) for example. I would lean to keep if someone has time to clean it up to Wikipedia style guidelines and clarify its relation to the other projects. W Nowicki (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to all you say. Maybe Worldwide LHC Computing Grid or European Grid Infrastructure could be merge targets but I don't have the knowledge required to form a useful opinion. However, as things stand a merge would unbalance any of these other articles. WP has consensus that WP:Notability is a guideline and not a policy and the guideline only says what can be presumed notable and not what is notable. We can still exercise judgement. Thincat (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I do not entirely understand what this is all about, but it looks notable to me. Perhaps the nom did not understand it either. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:28, 9 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) 05:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Newlands[edit]

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

Non notable author: only one book in worldCat, though a good many promotional publications for his own firm. The article has a section on his view on social media, but there's no reason to highlight them except to promote his services. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, burn with fire It failed at one AFD, and nothing has changed since - recreation needs to stop, and stop now ES &L 12:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've gone through the refs and deleted the ugliest of an ugly lot, but there's nothing left to support an article. There is much false appearance of notability, but it's basically an article about a self-appointed expert who has nothing meaningful to say and has nothing meaningful said about him. Lots and lots of bloggy puff, but no reliable sources. Even the Forbes article is borderline, and that's the only thing even close to good enough. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 11 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) 05:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TeenzFAV[edit]

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

There do not seem to be any normal reliable sources, but perhaps the online sites listed there are considered reliable in the subject field DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable teen awards show out of many, and you'd expect a show "compared to the US teen choice awards by entertainment insiders" to be on a network that isn't a VOD service many will ignore. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- None of the sources appear to be anything more than promotional announcements in online entertainment "rags". It appears to be a one time event in a theater that was broadcast on the Spotlight (TV channel). I don't see any grounds for notability. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 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. Michig (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 12-27, 2013 windstorm outbreak[edit]

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

The information here is a bit indiscriminate. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics (it is a series of storms that have little association with one another, and will be forgotten within weeks). Wikipedia is not a newspaper (again, these are largely topics from the following day's newspaper). I'd hardly say there is significant coverage, since it was just a series of storms that happened to briefly produce tropical storm force winds, which caused minor damage. I don't think a series of storms that caused minor power outages and hail is worth keeping, so I propose deletion, as opposed to merging (since the info is borderline trivial, and there's no where to merge it to). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. User has collected news items and attempted to create a pseudo-story where there is none. Article fails WP:OR, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very Weird. As per nom. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. An odd choice of topic, especially since we had a storm event on 10/11 September 2013 centred in Canterbury that was truly notable. Schwede 66 16:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This a wierd collection of meteorology events, that im not sure even happened.Jason Rees (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete---This random collection of weather reports for random week in a random location. Not a legitimate topic or a notable event.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:11, 10 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) 04:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BanglaWash[edit]

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

Neologism or slang term with no references given. ~~No Google hits on the term at all.~~ No indication of notability. Much of the current article seems to be an account of a particular sports event, of little relevance to the term even if it were notable. DES ^(talk) 19:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My error, it was "Dholai" that got no Google hits, "BanglaWash" gets several. DES ^(talk) 19:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this news story, this news story, this Urban Dictionary entry, and some youtube and face book mentions coem up early. Still seems of marginal notability a best, and would need major rewriting. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary - marginal term that does not have major coverage but might be worth a dictionary entry. Green Giant (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy delete. With the exception of the lead section, which seems to paraphrase Urban Dictionary, the remainder of the article is copied word-for-word from two ESPN articles. I have tagged the page for copyvio investigation. Cnilep (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copyrighted material has been removed; thank you, Justlettersandnumbers. That satisfies my objection about the possible need for speedy deletion. What remains, however, is a definition of the WP:Neologism, so I still think deletion may be warranted. Cnilep (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Although I nominated this, I am starting to think that the various ESPN, Dhaka Tribune, and Daily Times links (which were added after my nom) provide enough sources to perhaps write a marginal but valid article on the term, as they include examples of use. Obviously not by copy & paste, but by using them as proper sources. Or perhaps the article should be not on the term but on the sports events which the term was coined to describe. However, while the page is blanked for a copyvio investigation, no one can work on it, can they? DES ^(talk) 01:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can work on the article while the copyright investigation is going on, and should feel free to do so. On the banner there is an inscription, "Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material." If you 'show' those instructions, you will see a link ("Follow this link to create...") which creates a subpage to the article's talk page. A new version can be written there. The copied material can be accessed at the two espncricinfo URLs or in the article history. Following the copyright investigation, the subpage draft may be moved to the article. Cnilep (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the copyvio (I think I got it all) and the notice. Also some references and links that did not mention the term at all, including EPSN and the BBC. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIC. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About as unencyclopedic as it gets. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism; copy to Wiktionary if you must. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transclude to Wiktionary - The term has been used marginally in the media, deserves to be in the wiktionary at least.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:29, 9 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) 05:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore "Ted" Herrick[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghtis and gnews of substance. Article references are trivial in nature and do not support notability. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being an elector is not sufficiently notable. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Presidential elector isn't a claim to notability and member of the Grand Junction, Iowa City Council isn't sufficient. Semi-promotional politician fluff. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a member of the Electoral College is a state or national elected office, which normally indicates notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Members of the Electoral College are appointed not elected. The individual fails WP:NPOL.reddogsix (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Members of the Electoral College are elected (the candidates for President and Vice President are not actually on the ballot - the members of the College are - the candidates names stand for a slate of electors. However, the structure of the College is such that the members, by virtue of their position, do not routinely receive significant coverage in secondary sources. Thus, the Electors usually do not meet WP:GNG for their elected status. Delete. Enos733 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--based on what's there now, I don't see any way it meets the [[WP:Notability (people) guideline.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:14, 10 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 merge to List of circulating currencies. THere is unfortunately little doubt that this is not a notable concept (violating various parts of WP:NOT), and since little policy based support for it was forthcoming and it can easily be accommodated elsewhere, a merge seems appropriate. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highest-valued currency unit[edit]

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

A particularly stupid and pointless article consisting entirely of original research, violates WP:NOTABILITY and by its nature runs afoul of WP:OR. There's not a single reliable source provided to show that there is such a concept as "Highest valued currency unit" or "Least valued currency unit" outside of Wikipedia (only a link to a web page which has exchange rates). That's because there are no such sources. Google books, after subtracting off Wikipedia reprints gives 1 hit, which looks like a reprint as well [1]. Google scholar gives 3 hits, one of which appears to be a Wikipedia mirror/reprint and the other two are not reliable and are accidental, if not also mirrors [2]. Google itself (you know, that search engines that usually gives hundreds of thousands of hits) yields a measly 84 hits, after Wikipedia mirrors are subtracted off. And those 84 hits themselves appear to be mostly Wikipedia mirrors that haven't been properly filtered out. On top of that the concept is pretty meaningless and useless. No textbooks write about "highest valued currency units". No scholarly papers. No books. Because it wouldn't make much sense (why not state that the "100 dollar bill is the highest valued currency unit?). It only exists on Wikipedia in a form of this silly article which serves no encyclopedic purpose. Rather it's just a magnet for various edit warriors who think that if one's country's currency unit is "higher valued" then that means that the penis size of their country must also be bigger. Delete this nonsense. Volunteer Marek 18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for obvious reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I had a look around for other articles that list currencies, and it seems like the info can just be tacked on as a new column to List of circulating currencies, perhaps? Also, the article is a clear case for deletion if you bring up WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but as I said, I'd be happier seeing the cost of one unit in USD as a column on an already existing table. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these are nice lists and somewhat interesting to me. However I fail to see the point of the highest, and even more so the lowest value currencies, although a list of all currencies may be better. The biggest problems is that the lists are not comparing like for like.
- First they do not take into account the values of notes and coins in circulation. The UK is the fifth most valuable currency (ex. Bitcoin), the most valuable note is the £50 (77US$), and these are rarely seen. Costa Rica is the 25th least valuable and the most valuable note is the C50,000 (94US$) i.e. more than the biggest sterling note. Similarly the smallest coins are worth 1.5c and 0.94c, i.e. similar values despite the places in the lists.
- Second they do not take into account wages and the cost of living. Currencies should be based upon what coins/notes it is reasonable to carry around with you. If a loaf of bread in one country costs 1/10 of that in the US, it stands to reason that most notes/coins will also have a value of 1/10 of the US dollar.
- The comment that the Zambian Kwacha was rebased 1000:1 and is no-longer on the least valued list shows why there are big problems with the lists being called "Highest" and "Least", although it would be nice to have all the currancies somewhere.Martin451 00:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A list you say? It's always in the last place you look... tutterMouse (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources discuss the concept; by that definition, it's not notable. It may be interesting and useful, but neither of those is a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is primarily a list of exchange rates, which (in addition to probably breaking WP:NOTSTATSBOOK) fluctuate constantly. Unless updated continually (like the currency exchange database which serves as the article's only source) this information will consistently run the risk of becoming obselete. It looks like the numbers haven't been updated in almost two weeks either, including the 3 or so days it was locked for edit warring. Hoping this AfD discussion will be more civil than big sections of that article's talk page. Breadblade (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article provides an informative source of information. It is not "original" because it is based on current exchange information. Further, the rates do not fluctuate that much. In general, rates are consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzi777 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources which discuss the concept of a "Highest-valued currency unit". If someone on Wikipedia came up with it, then went and got exchange rates and made some calculations, even if the exchange rate info is legit, that is still a quintessential instance of WP:Original research. Volunteer Marek 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keepAlmost all the arguments given for deleting this are either incorrect or invalid. It is NOT original research, and per WP:GHITS Google search results are not a valid argument in deletion discussions. And the analogy at the bottom is incorrect and inappropriate. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 17:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for deletion are that it's not notable and original research. You have not addressed these arguments, merely asserted, without justification that "It is NOT original research". Backing that up would require providing reliable sources which establish notability, but as the searches show, such sources simply do not exist. In this instances WP:GHITS is inapplicable - there's still no evidence of any notability. Volunteer Marek 20:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research because it's sourced. And it is applicable, stop using Google to back up your points. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:OR again I'm afraid. Volunteer Marek 21:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research, the exchange rates are as they are in the source. Unless ordering them is original research in your opinion? See WP:CALC. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 14:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also (I quote) "A particularly stupid and pointless article". Seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 19:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I think that merging these articles into List of currencies or List of circulating currencies would be perfectly fine. Volunteer Marek 21:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Um, well I just relied on this article, along with its counterpart Highest-valued currency unit to quantify a software-implemented risk in currency exchange. I verified that "Kuwaiti dinars" are indeed far higher than for example pounds sterling. These are verifiable facts, even if they are volatile and subject to change. I'd wager the original nominator saw his country's currency and for some reason let that affect his judgment. No one is thinking of "penis size" when they read exchange rates except you, bro. Shiggity (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOT a valid reason for keeping. People rely on all kinds of stuff (including silly stuff) all the time. Doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. And if you really think that "highest value" of a currency has something to do with return on currency speculation or inherent risk ... let me suggest in sincere good faith that you take your money and put it in a bank at .0005%. At least it will still be there in the future. Volunteer Marek 21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All this really establishes is that xe.com is useful, since everything in this article was pulled off there. Breadblade (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have a look at share price there's a little trivia sentence on what the most expensive share price has been. Do the same with this info and add it to Exchange rate, perhaps? Also, I'm noticing that Exchange rate and currency pair are quite well-written articles, and I can find no hint whatsoever of a "most valuable unit" being something important to the editors that have contributed to them. Lastly, I found the article Tables of historical exchange rates to the United States dollar, which is yet another contender for the article to merge into, just add a column to show this year's exchange rate. EditorInTheRye (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a well established precedent for reference tables on Wikipedia. This table is quite useful and well sourced and should thus remain on here. Travelbird (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table really is NOT useful in any meaningful sense. It is not well sourced. Not a single source is provided that a concept of "highest valued currency unit" exists outside of wikipedia (it doesn't because such a concept is meaningless). Even then "is useful" is not a legitimate argument in a deletion discussion. And there is no precedent for 'reference tables', whatever those are. Volunteer Marek 11:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what would you call the comparison table of the different motion picture rating systems that is at the top of the article, eh? That's certainly a reference table to me. As are the tables showing the chronology of the different automobile marques and the models they produced. And that's only scratching. Now, could the table be better cited? Definitely. I certainly find this table to be quite useful. Hence, to me it's a strong Keep. -Dan 72.87.116.62 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but the reference tables you are referring to are well-sourced and refer to relatively static phenomena. Currency figures copied infrequently from a single exchange rate database are going to be inaccurate for long periods of time, so I wouldn't even be willing to say that the table is WP:USEFUL. Either way, pointing to other articles and claiming usefulness aren't great arguments to make in deletion discussions. Breadblade (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has a valid point and it deserves to stay. It's common knowledge for people to know what are the highest valued currencies in the world and a lot of people search Google for it. The article can have a more rich content like for example, why Kuwaiti Dinar is considered so high in value etc.. I think pointing to a webpage with an exchange rates as a referral, is only normal since exchange rates are one way to show the value of that particular currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaled617 (talk • contribs) — Khaled617 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't agree with several of the OP's opening statement. The list is not "stupid and pointless" and the concept is not "meaningless and useless". There is a clear and understandable meaning that some might well find WP:INTERESTING.

But the OP does have a policy-based point that is not addressed by those who want to keep. There do not seem to be any sources. The list is OR and will always be so. The list is, by definition, continually out-of-date. Policy, I believe, thus requires that we either merge or delete. Kahastok talk 20:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody explain why there has to be two pages for this (a lowest and highest page)? Why not just a "list of exchange rates" where visitors can click column headers to sort the values? The fact that they exist as such makes me believe the (however ridiculous it sounds) "penis size" argument more.

I think the proposals to merge the page address this. However I don't think it would make sense to have a "list of exchange rates" page, with current currency values either. Exchange rates change daily. Or actually even hourly or minute by minute (depending on which currency you're talking about and the volume of trade). What is usually reported at sites like xe.com is the average or closing rates. Anyway, even with daily rates, or weekly rates etc. it wouldn't make sense to have such a page as it'd have to be continually updated. That's just not a kind of purpose that an encyclopedia is well suited for. We don't have a page that lists current stock prices (never mind "highest valued stocks") and we shouldn't have this one either. Volunteer Marek 22:22, 11 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ CHOZ[edit]

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

Declined A7 speedy, right on the borderline in my view. Supplied refs seem to be all Primary. Google gives some independant coverage, including a mention of a tour, but I am not at all sure that any are reliable sources. DES ^(talk) 03:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless better sources are found, as nominator. DES ^(talk) 03:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 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, KTC (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO.STATic message me! 18:51, 4 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 merge to Shreya Ghoshal discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O Tota Pakhi Re[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of 88.104.19.237 as per request on talk page: "Contested proposed deletion; Per WP:NALBUMS, "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. [..] Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article" §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Shreya Ghoshal discography, unless better sourcing can be found. Shreya Ghoshal is a notable artist, the album exists and merging is - in my opinion - a better option and service to our readers than deletion. On the other hand, the sourcing of the article - as it stands now - is insufficient to maintain a stand alone article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part do you think should be merged? A list of the tracks? Their times? Or just "It consists of 20 tracks"?

I'm not disagreeing exactly; leaving a redirect is fine; I'm just wondering about the 'merge' part, if there's anything worth merging. 88.104.29.3 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged in accordance with other entries in the discography, see for example Swapner Pakha in the list. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I see what you mean - yes, fair enough, fine with me, thanks. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge The current article has only one viable citation; a feature article by a special interest, subscription newspaper. So, as others have stated, its not enough for a stand alone article. However, if a listing can be merged with a relevant article then that is a good thing and since the nominator has expressed no objection to that option it appears to be a good solution.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:34, 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, —SpacemanSpiff 05:09, 26 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, KTC (talk) 18:41, 3 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kwik Way (band)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looked everywhere, Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines.--Nlfestival (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 27 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, KTC (talk) 18:40, 3 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 Halifax Regional School Board. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William King Elementary[edit]

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

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#Schools, elementary schools are generally not notable, and this one doesn't appear to be extraordinarily different. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Halifax Regional School Board. There is nothing notable about the history or architecture of this run-of-the-mill primary school. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Cullen, with due respect to the editor who's created quite a well-crafted article (just one dodgy link, St. Mary's University which is a redirect to a dab page) on an inherently non-notable topic. Please carry on editing, but find a more WP:NOTABLE topic next time. PamD 22:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax Regional School Board since it fails WP:ORG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:53, 3 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) 05:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Street Works[edit]

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

Promotion and advertising. As most Google hits are about the expositions and/or social media, the organisation fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 14:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:46, 25 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, KTC (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails NGO due to lack of national activity, but it might pass on GNG if sources about the gallery are found beyond local news. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:50, 6 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 merge to Mahmoud Shoolizadeh. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Toolmaker[edit]

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

Having worked extensively in doc articles here, I must say I've puzzled over this one for years. A Google News Archive search reveals... nothing at all. Non-notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 19 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, Wifione ^Message 15:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to director Mahmoud Shoolizadeh (at least the main paragraph, not sure we need lead or technical info). The director is notable due to later work, but I'm a little unsure what to make of entries like this which aren't even in IMDb, or on any western film festival website, or video on demand or other non-WP:RS sites. This is basically a short TV program I assume (it's produced by the Iranian state broadcaster). There are some web search results, but most could be taken from Wikipedia. Delete if people have concerns this doesn't exist or is totally unverifiable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:15, 24 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, KTC (talk) 18:16, 3 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) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarShop[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG, due to the lack of any in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, I vouch to remove this page as well. Tritario (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are lots of hits on Google News, but they're all subscription. Maybe someone can comment on whether they're relevant? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:14, 25 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, KTC (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looked at NewsBank. 287 hits. The problem is, most of them are in error (scholarship ~= scholarshop), or they are local St. Louis sources, or trivial mentions. It would be a lot of time and work to go through each one and try to make a case for Keep. My rough estimate is there is not enough sourcing. I did find in-depth sources that talk about the ScholarShop at length as the main focus of the article, but all from the same local paper:

"Cool factor of resale shopping benefits ScholarShop - Everyone loves a bargain, and now they're not afraid to admit it", St. Louis Post-Dispatch
"Scholarship fund opens temporary outlet for sale", St. Louis Post-Dispatch
"ScholarShop's success leads to opening of a second store", St. Louis Post-Dispatch
"SCHOLARSHOP USES UPSCALE CASTOFFS TO PROVIDE LOANS FOR FUTURE SCHOLARS", St. Louis Post-Dispatch

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:11, 6 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 List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elyon Brown[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 18 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. Not independently notable. Not discussed in independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 25 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, KTC (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No claim made about real world notability, no external references. Possibly leave a redirect and merge into List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. LK (talk) 03:50, 4 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) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vithu prince[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC guidelines. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed speedy deletion for some reason. No sources or indication of notability. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Absolutely nothing here but a photo and description, no body or references, do I even need to cite why it should be deleted? TomKoenig (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per A7 no indication of any possible notability. STATic message me! 20:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied this as A7, which is what it was, and an actual search for sources reveals nothing whatsoever that could establish notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:43, 6 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) 01:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LaVon Gittens[edit]

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

(auto) Biography of an author that fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. I am adding the article created about his series as well, which seems to be self-published and also fails to meet WP:NBOOKS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all notability criteria, as does the book series. Nevertheless wish him luck with the book just not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia which requires multiple book reviews in reliable sources (Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, etc..) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I've nominated the author's page for speedy, as it's a copyvio of his "about the author" section on Amazon. Either way, neither are notable enough for an article on WP. There's a third article about the first book that I've nominated for a speedy, Divine Apocalypse The Beginning Of The End. If by some chance it doesn't get speedied, I'd like to endorse that it get deleted along with the other two articles up for AfD here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 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 WP:CSD#G7 per comments by Ivaylo-atanasov in this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UserWill[edit]

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

WP:N. I can find no coverage of this operating system, and the official website shows 0 downloads of the product. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of right now, it's only been registered for 17 hours. As far as I can tell, there is no notable coverage of the project anywhere from before then, and no coverage anywhere of its inception. — daranz [ t ] 16:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK. Delete it. You have the right to do it. The project is not ready yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivaylo-atanasov (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:42, 3 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) 05:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Old Catholicism[edit]

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

Doesn't seem at all like an encyclopedia article; it's just a list of books that someone (who?) says is significant. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my note on the article talk page 3 years ago. Replicates Old Catholic Church#Bibliography with the addition of entries in this list that shouldn't be there. Stalwart111 21:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stalwart111. -- 101.119.14.130 (talk) 22:06, 3 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. I see no reason to let this linger. Whatever reliable sources there are don't discuss (linked ones) or seem to discuss (offline ones) the actual topic--this organization. The laundry list of "media coverage" pertains to the subject of the subject's activism, not, from spot checks, to the subject. In addition, the text is irredeemably not-neutral, combing essay-style OR with promotion. Drmies (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advocates for Awareness of Watchtower Abuses : AAWA[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Article contains a long list of references but they do not reference this organisation Hack (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A well-intentioned attempt to document the existence of the organization, however there is no significant coverage whatsoever other than self-generated content and some videos. Certainly no news hits at all. Which makes sense given that it was founded only this year. A case of WP:TOOSOON perhaps, but fails WP:ORG for now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This will be the third time the article has been deleted under different names. The first two were Speedy Deletions. In addition to what FreeRangeFrog said, the article is highly promotional, has copyright violations (copied from http://aawa.co/mission-statement/) and has major COI issues. While some of these issues can be overcome, lack of significant coverage cannot. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 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) 05:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanian Grand Viziers of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

This list would be much better served as a category, since it's essentially a selective copying of the original list, List of Ottoman Grand Viziers. Anyone looking to see which grand viziers were Albanian can do a search on that page and/or view the Category page for Albanian grand viziers of the Ottoman Empire. Since the original grand viziers list is far from complete, it's a pain to have to copy all changes back and forth. Another option is to remove the list from the page and just leave it as an informational article on the higher-than-proportion amount of Albanian grand viziers, with a link to the regular grand viziers list page, instead of copying the list as is. Ithinkicahn (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the List of Ottoman Grand Viziers should be sufficient as it shows a breakdown of nationalities there, perhaps a sorting column could be added so people can sort by nationality? However, as Albania didn't exist at the time and the Grand Vizier is an Ottoman role, not simply an Albanian one, there is no need for another page that only shows a piece of what it already shown in the original. I might also suggest making a note to the effect that a disproportionate amount of Albanians served in that role on the main page. DarExc (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Albanian would be an ethnicity, but this adds nothing to the List of Ottoman Grand Viziers. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:59, 7 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 merge to List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Russo (Wizards of Waverly Place)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article is all plot. Sources are only to episodes of Wizards of Waverly Place and an interview with David Henrie. Merely appearing in a work of fiction is not enough, as notability is not inherited. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters. Does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Russo for a similar action taken before. Ithinkicahn (talk) 18:44, 10 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) 05:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFXMarkets[edit]

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

The creating editor has removed the PROD, thus I have brought it here as a contested PROD. Reason was "This corporation has had a remarkably similar article speedily deleted once as failing WP:GNG. The references are Press Release material or primary sources, and there is no obvious reason that the organisation is at all notable. It appears to be a run of the mill brokerage with nothing to justify an article here. The username of the creating editor also implies some sort of COI and thus trade puffery. I see this as WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT" Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found of notability; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (That aside, the contributing editor's comment "This page officially describes the company" appears to indicate WP:COI.) AllyD (talk) 21:10, 3 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) 05:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Kicinski[edit]

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

Questionable notability and over-promotion of a "personality". I also have concerns about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simply Gluten Free Magazine and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simply Gluten Free Omnimedia, Inc. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Andy, I just wanted to let you know I made some major edits to all three pages. If you could look them over when you get a chance and let me know if you have any other concerns about them that would be great. Thanks so much. --M.Renae (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overt advertising for the person and her works. There is only one reference that meets the guidelines for reliable sources. The others are pretty much calenders of events, recipes and other stuff that does not confer notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a combined article on these subjects would be appropriate. There isn't oodles of coverage, but a Google News search shows several sources covering her, her cookbooks and blog in reliable independent sources.Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:23, 23 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:23, 3 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 per WP:CSD#A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Avellaneda Jr.[edit]

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

Player fails the notability rules as he hasn't played professionally. Jaellee (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I've tagged it as there's no sign he's played at required level or got other notability. Peridon (talk) 14:03, 3 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) 05:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Maglunob[edit]

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

self-promotion, fails notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several search variations (e.g., "interview", "headline", "premiere", etc) that often work to find good sources of notability for creative professionals failed here. No news hits, no depth of coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing much in secondary sources yet. Could revisit at a later point in time. Without prejudice towards recreation. Here's an idea: Maybe userfy for the creator for further research if they're up for it. — Cirt (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creator was a two-edit user 6 years ago, presumably the subject of the article. If somehow he makes it big, as you say the article can be recreated.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clearly an autobiography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 4 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) 05:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nickels[edit]

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

On notability grounds. Mixed martial artist who has not fought in any top tier fights. Other claims of notability are unsourced. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He actually has two top tier fights both in the UFC but he's still one short from passing WP:NMMA. Into the Rift (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually include The Ultimate Fighter as UFC - I was under the impression that it wasn't the same or considered top tier.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He fought on an Ultimate Fighter Finale event those count as UFC events the fights on the tv show do not count. Into the Rift (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Still it does not look like he will make the three top tier.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG because he lacks enough top tier fights and significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with previous comments. He fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:49, 6 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) 05:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Untold Story of Arundhati and The Black Emperor[edit]

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

Fails all of WP:NBOOK criteria including, "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself... Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes ... or other publications where the author, ... advertise or speak about the book." (emphasis added).

There is one borderline reliable source, which is the author talking about the book, and contains no independent critical commentary.
The notability of the author, her work; and the reliability of and coverage in sources, were analyzed extensively at two previous AFDs, the second of which was closed as "delete" just a day before this article was created by an SPA focused on the author and her work. Abecedare (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing of note about this. It is fancruft, produced by a fairly long-term exemplar. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Notability not asserted. I have not seen any relevant reviews.- Zananiri (talk) 21:15, 9 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) 05:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Choudhuri[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of an Indian poet of unclear notability. Article creator K. C. Lincolnshire might be in a conflict-of-interest. bender235 (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any coverage in reliable, independent sources, though I found his own book. Given that the article says he writes in English, some coverage in English language media in India would be expected if he is now notable. Too soon, perhaps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also unable to find reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:54, 3 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) 05:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ABECRAFT[edit]

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

Currently unreferenced article about a short lived Minecraft server. No indication of notability, and possibly promoting its possible reopening. Peridon (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Written like an advertisement (and a story in places). Name calling in article (not a neutral point of view). No sources cited. Good candidate for deletion Joshua Walton (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic writing could be fixed, but without reliable secondary sources it does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the GNG. Non-notable journal like documenting of some random people's antics with Minecraft stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per basically A7 -- non-notable entity, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy basic WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can - it's had a prod already. That's why it's at AfD now. This way, if it comes back we can use G4. Peridon (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks any reliable sources out there to satisfy WP:GNG. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like it's a dramatic story. No indication of notability. George8211 ^{conversations} 19:51, 4 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 merge to Ken Wilber. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integral art[edit]

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

Seems to be a poorly curated and originally researched list of artists that are being proclaimed as emblematic of integral thought. jps (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Merge usable content into Wilber, or Integral theory, or somesuch William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content worth saving. Not a coherent topic. Bhny (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Merge with Ken Wilber. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:59, 27 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 08:16, 3 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 snow delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates (director)[edit]

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

Non-notable film director. PRODed by User:Timtrent as "The gentleman is not notable. The reference is but a passing mention.", and I concurred via PROD2 as "fails WP:BIO--only work is a not-yet-released film". An editor has dePRODed, so here we are in AfD. DMacks (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fiddle Faddle 08:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject may be aspiring but has not yet attained WP:FILMMAKER notability. The passing mention in the single reference could hardly be more passing "being directed by Kamal Haasan's assistant by the name Socrates"; not exactly in-depth coverage of the subject. AllyD (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per PROD, and per PROD2. Note: {{old prod full}} added to talk page showing PROD and PROD2 reasons. No reason given for removing PROD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. ~~I wonder why it got deprodded.~~ Ah, come to think of it, I don't wonder why it got deprodded. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 4 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alvaro Dias Huizar[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Generally chess players need to be Grandmasters to be notable players. International Masters are below that, and FIDE masters (as this person is) are below that. And his rating has dropped significantly from its peak. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order to try to keep this article i notice the administrators some of the changes executed: Concerning the article: 1.- Add references and titles, 2.-Complete biographical informaion 3.- Attach FIDE reglament and Application title- Justify the level got of this player some years before. 4.- In the discussion explain personal position about notability in this particular case and some technical aspects concerning the FIDE reglament 5.- Add a category, 6.- Delate external links not reliable with the article and delate a photo considering it, not authorized to FIDE players (probably reserved only to Grand Masters). After read the arguments consider this article only like stub. Robertjor23 (talk) 21:35 10 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.121.110 (talk)

Delete. I agree with the nomination. In some cases a player who has not gained the GM title may be notable by winning a national champion, or gain notability as an author, but I cannot see that is the case here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No justification to keep. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person has notability by his profession (law) other than chess (that is not the common case of chess players, the majority of them without University studies). He won local Open tournaments in France defeating International and Grand Masters, considering that chess is not a common sport in his country his international background is notable. The rating is relative and the FIDE titles like FIDE Master are recognized by FIDE (Federation International d'échecs) in his page. Probably the photo in the infobox could be remove because is reserved to Grand Masters category. Robertjor23 (talk) 2:45 3/11/2013 (UTC)
- The only tournament win the article mentions is this one, where he tied with two others for first place. But he wasn't competing against masters, much less grandmasters. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the detail tournament effectevily he played against International Master Atanas Kizov (won) and International Master Andelkenjo (draw) this one 14:52 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- And as far as his country, he is the 87th-highest rated, and that is only counting ones with FIDE ratings, and a lot of similar players probably don't have FIDE ratings. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To become a FIDE player is not easy, read the article 7.14 Fide reglament here [3] 14:52 4 November 2013 (UTC). Consider that he is not an active player but he has the title because he was ranked top and get the 2300 points required to FIDE title.

Not true. One does not need to get a 2300 rating to get the FM title: there are many alternative ways (50% score at a Zonal tournament, for example). And the player in question has never reached 2300 anyway. Even if he did, that still wouldn't be enough to establish notability. Also, sock alert... Cobblet (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. This person had 2350 in 1994. FIDE never done a Title without accomplish the rules of the reglament title.Tifany87 9:24 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep About Notability . Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Notability requires (verifiable evidence). In relation with his rating effectively he get even 2350 in 1994. Here the email address: Federation International d'échecs <[email protected]> and Federacion Venezolana Ajedrez <[email protected]> Tifany87 9:08 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with all of the points made above. Not notable. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 29,315th-ranked chess player in the world is not notable. Cobblet (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is only counting FIDE ratings. In the US, most of the players in his range don't have FIDE ratings. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that is also true of many other countries. Cobblet (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Chess Master is nothing in the world. In this case common people drinking wine have the right to become wikipedian. Why chess is recognized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:660:7220:385:193:52:103:33 (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chess is an art, is complex, is different, there are 600 millions of people in the planet who knows to play chess. Nothing in the world??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertjor23 (talk • contribs)

Keep Dear Bubba73: I wrote you in order to explain you respectfully the reason of my article.

Firstly, this article was created folowing the right confered by a formal wikipedia category (FIDE Masters); secondly, concerning notablity, it could be posible make a stub of this person because is a rare case in his poor country become a chess master, having many nationalities and becoming PhD in Law in France making him strange personality in chess world. Third, there are other players FIDE Masters in wikipedia that never study nothing and however they are in wiki because only participated as a second in a chess Olimpiad or a cheater like Ivanov Borislav without nothing of merit to become a FIDE Master. If you play chess probably you know the difficulty to become a Master and more when you'are a lawyer, engineer or other...like Kamsky. (. Concerning the raiting, you know that chess raiting are relative each year, it depends of your time and money to play tournaments; the more important case Anand (He is not the best ELO in the world but he is the World Champion, other example Bobby Fischer die not with the title or the raiting prouving his level, but everybody knows him one of the best ever! I coincide with you that not all FIDE Masters have the right to be there because they are only that (a common chess players); particularly in this case i know Mr Dias in a tournament last year and his personality is awesome by his intelectual discuss and his chess capacity. In all case if the decision is delate the article consider also propose disappear the category FIDE Master on wikipedia.

Respectfully and kind regards. fidebairawiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidebairawiki (talk • contribs) 10:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Fidebaira, in this case is not the rating or ranking that prouve the notability. He has the title and he is from Venezuela, not from Russia!, considering that his peak was 2350 it means he was in the first 4000 in the world! There are all his games on the database drawing with Grand Master! The game against Dvirnyy 400 world, prouve his force . Chess is most popular licencied game than football but however there are many football players of third division in wikipedia. Gens una sumuus, come on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.121.110 (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The main point is that there is a category for him. Even more stronger peak than other FIDE Masters on wiki. A retired player with a lot of nationalities, speaking many languages i suposse. PhD in UK and France (prouved). Young lawyer and Mensa member. We can see sometimes people, in special politicians or artist without talent on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertjor23 (talk • contribs)

That there's a category proves nothing: we've categories "Writers from Idaho", "Alumni of the University of Oxford", "People from Peoria, Illinois", etc, but that doesn't prove every writer from Idaho deserves an article, or everyone from Peoria. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take your exemple, there are 42 writers from Idaho and not a single FIDE chess master, that prouve the difficulty or also probably because there are only 5000 aprox. FIDE masters in the world, considering that we are 7 thousand million humans now the question could be: how many FIDE Masters from Venezuela are International lawyers?, ok then, how many FIDE Masters and lawyers from Venezuela are Law Professors and PhD in Europe?, well, now the question how many of them defeated the Italian blitz champion in a tournament?, and how many of them won an open? I agree with your commentary but consider that he is in 2 special categories FIDE Masters | People from Venezuela. His country has 40 players titled players aprox. in all his chess history, now the question, how many of them stand out not only in chess? Probably this is my last argument, this defense become crazy!, lol Robertjor23 (talk) 21:35 7 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.121.110 (talk)

As far as him winning an open tournament, the tournament listed has "open" in the title, but everyone in it was rated under 2200, which would be unusual for an open tournament. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, in this tournament participated other FIDE Masters and International Masters, Rc means average rating competion, not rating player this one you can also verify information about players in [4], probably it would be better before claim for Delation read more about Reglament. Respectfully Robertjor23 (talk 18:25 8 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.121.110 (talk)

OK, I stand corrected on that point. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Here the FIDE Title Regulations valid until 30 June 2013 [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertjor23 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Here the application form of Mr. Dias https://drive.google.com/file/d/13hOR5B2eFZfrSjh68M_zz0nwbOLC4EeTd4o3EKobN3pj3BjNUgWfMPVH15Bj/edit?usp=sharing For more information writte to International Chess Federation <[email protected]> and Federacion Venezolana Ajedrez <[email protected]> Tifany87 11:05 5 November 2013 (UTC).
Delete. Non notable re: reputable sources. What is up with all these ridiculously transparent sockpuppets voting "keep" on every obscure Chess IM deletion discussion these days? Titled Chess player, attorney, professor, and sockpuppet mastermind... By the way, "Tifany87," Tiffany is spelled with two "L"s. Not only that but Debbie Gibson was a lot better in '87. OUT, Monkeysnap (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet account blocked indefinitely. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- With all respect Mr. Monkeysnap|talk this space was created to argument for the people who understand the dinamic of the discussions, by the way, Chess is considered a mind sport discipline, is not correct criticise the valid sources and ironize demereting the titled. Explain with arguments why you consider this article inapropiate. Compare with the other FIDE Masters in wikipedia, analyse, propose...The defense about chess titled players is because only the people who plays this "mastermind sport", understand the difficulty of this game. Jalous of a sockpuppet master defending his article?, in all case say us why you consider the sources invalid. To be jalous or simply d'ont like this mind sport i'm affraid is not enough saying "ridiculously transparent sockpuppets voting "keep" on every obscure Chess IM deletion discussion these days?", what is the argument? Explain what is notablity for you, explain why you consider chess an inapropiate source of notability. Regards Robertjor23 (talk 22:23 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing editor: I have stricken the repeated "keep" votes. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His chess accomplishments don't warrant a Wikipedia article, and I don't see any other claims to notability in the article. Quale (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usually FM's that have a separate article have some other claim to notability. I don't really see that here. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: might be a stronger case for keeping the article if he were presented as a well known law professor who happens to be good at chess... if indeed it can be established that he is notable as a law professor. Instead he is being presented as a famous chess player, which he isn't. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply doesn't appear to be notable in Wikipedia terms as either a lawyer or a chess player StuartDouglas (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Notability requires (verifiable evidence). Please, only explain with arguments your point of view. Compare with the other chess players in his category (Venezuela-Mexico or France) and then try to explain your vote to deletion. He is not presented as "a famous player" only as multifaceted person not common in his category (FIDE Masters) with many nationalities like Kamran Shirazi, Vladislav Tkachiev or some others. When you compare this guy with the other players from Mexico, Venezuela or France his merits other than chess are "notable", probably not the best French, probably not the best Mexican, probably not the best Venezuelan, probably not the best lawyer, probably not the best Doctor or professor, probably not the best chess player but all mixed is simply notable. Maybe MaxBrowne could help us to reformulate the presentation or rewrite the article in order to keep it as stub. If you analyse the Grand Master, International Masters or FIDE Masters categories 90% they are only that Chess Masters with 2 Olympiads in average and 2 or 3 games played then with 2420 elo average (3 categories mixed), the must common case of chess players is only play chess and nothing more, that is the point here to consider notability. Please before vote delete read the discussion and answer with more precision in where you consider necessary. Regards. Robertjor23 (talk 18:00 11 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.121.110 (talk)

From WP:Notability (people): "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" From WP:GNG: ""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.[1]" The article subject does not meet these criteria. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and i agree with a part of your explication because you only notice some aspect of notability, you forgot the list by discipline, then If you look for chess you find that is not specified in wikipedia what is notability as a chess player, ( Only mention what kind of chess players have the right to be considered notables and d'ont mention FIDE Masters) but relies as a right to some subcategories for players including by nations and then you find FIDE Masters without elements to establish a definition of notability criteria for these cases but to hold the title, so the question here is what kind of notability we can refered when we d'ont have a precise definition? (simply d'ont mention) ok, now even if we transpole this specific case and try to apply by analogy of reason comparing with other sports there is not reason to delation when a person accomplish perfectably the criteria of 2 subcategories (FIDE Masters| by nations). In all case if the criteria to chess notability is to be Grand Master or participate in a chess olympiad then i agree with you. I attach the link here. Cheers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chess_FIDE_Masters. Robertjor23 (talk 21:00 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there are some others that need to be deleted. You mentioned Vladislav Tkachiev and Kamran Shirazi. The first is a grandmaster; the second is an international master, which is above a FM, but he may not be notable enough. But also you are arguing that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you missunderstood my exemple, i only mentioned these players in order to demonstrate the meaning of multicultural player, i know perfectbly the title of both, please d'ont supose arguing stuff exists, i d'ont want to exemplify more, but you can read the biographies about chess players and the article that you nominate has completely normal criteria. Probably a lot of discussion for a not notable player no? Robertjor23 (talk 22:08 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you know any others that are not notable, please start an AfD for them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not this kind of users! Every people whose are in the category chess players (FIDE, International and Grand masters by nations) have merit to be there because they are categorized (like in this case). D'ont ironize please with a bad presomption of affirmation to falls in basic sylogism. That is not the best way to defend your deletion motifs. If you see your comments after each answer you change the arguments about deletion in order to insist about your AfD nomination. Robertjor23 (talk 23:08 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Minor chess player with an ELO about as high as the top players at my local chess club. Doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.--Atlan (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move for a close. Consensus is clear. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:05, 11 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) 00:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young Pelton[edit]

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

The overall tone of this hero-worshipping biography is so promotional that I cannot figure out how to rewrite it. I think we would do better to delete and start over. Examining the earlier AfD in 2006, the keep argument are in the same tone as this article. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles such as this and many more like it make it clear that this person is notable. We don't need to delete an article about a notable topic in order to improve it. Normal editing will suffice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We don't delete notable topics just because we don't like how an article is written. This author has plenty of book reviews to pass AUTHOR #3 not to mention tons of GNG material. DGG please stop using AfD as a mechanism to address perceived content or editor behavior issues, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The previous AfD closed Keep just as this one will because there are abundant sources that show this topic is notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's argument doesn't fit neatly into any of the categories in WP:Promotion (Hero worshiping isn't good but it doesn't have to be an ad.). Furthermore, with WP:Notability clear, as I believe it is in this case, it is preferable to rewrite than to delete. Furthermore, it is possible to rewrite articles like this even in a wiki-environment with competing opinions.Crtew (talk) 20:21, 3 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back2Basics[edit]

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

Regional radio show, mainly filled out with information by the host. Only three references on the article Murry1975 (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 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, Cerebellum (talk) 01:59, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 3 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.

Hi, (My apologies seeing as the Talk page has been deleted I thought it best to add this here.) I hope I'm not too late to add some further information to this, which may help the assessment of notability etc for my page Back2Basics. I don't believe consensus has been found (maybe I'm misunderstanding the process though). Further details on the growing international nature of the show are outline my Talk page and that of (talk). Regards, Simon.

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brushfire (comics)[edit]

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

Fictional character that fails to establish notability separate from Gravity. Notability is not inherited. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: B. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 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) 02:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: B. I can't locate any reliable sources that discuss this character. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:37, 3 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 merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. The keep !vote did not provide sources to justify inclusion. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cube (comics)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It is one of the major prisons in Marvel Comics and it had some media appearances. Besides, where are we supposed to put the info on each prison's inmates. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:12, October 25 2013 (UTC)

Articles need to establish notability. The importance in the fictional world does not matter, primary appearances do not establish notability, and information on the inmates is too detailed for a general encyclopedia (and should be removed even if any of these manage to establish notability). TTN (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this one to wherever the others in this series end up, Features of the Marvel Universe or List of correctional facilities in comics. Same reason as the others: it's not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 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) 02:20, 3 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) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8[edit]

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

Delete this notable list because Wikipedia is not a directory. Notability is required (and established) but is not enough. Let me give you an example: Is "software" notable? Yes. But is a list of all softwar allowed in Wikipedia? No. I have already moved appropriate items to List of alternative shells for Windows. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of alternative shells for Windows. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 01:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The OP has already tried nominated this article for deletion for the same reason.[6] The community has already decided that this article easily meets the WP:GNG for lists (see evidence below).

A small sampling of reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Many more exist, but this is starting to become ridiculous.

IT World - 9 Windows Start menus for Windows 8
Delaware Online - Windows 8 woes GetStart menu sub
TechNewsDaily - 3 Ways to Bring Back the Start Menu in Windows 8
PC World - Give Windows 8 the Start Menu It Deserves
PC Magazine - Tip: How to Get the Start Menu Back in Windows 8
USA Today - How to add a Start menu to Windows 8
ExtremeTech - How to bring back the Start menu and button to Windows 8
Laptop Magazine - 6 Ways to Totally Avoid Metro and Use Only Desktop Mode in Windows 8
Information Week - What Windows 8.1 Must Be
CNET - Will 'normal' Windows users want a Start button for Win 8?
CNET - How to get the Start menu back in Windows 8
CNET - Pokki Windows 8 Start menu grabs half a million downloads
PC World - Sorry, Microsoft: Users really want the Start menu back

Once notability has been established, it never goes away. If anything, this topic has been even more notable, as many reliable sources have continued to publish more and more articles on this topic. Here's just one published within the last few days as an example.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for calling me pejoratives like "OP". I really appreciate insults. (Sarcasm intended.) Notability is required, but is not enough. It means you can have articles on notable topics but not link farms about them. Best regards(?), Codename Lisa (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CL, one can claim you must assume good faith because "OP" might mean "original poster"; and if you, like me, think original poster is himself, then one can claim you must accept difference of opinions too. Anyway, the good part is, you can retaliate by calling him AC and claim it stands for "article creator". Fleet Command (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Windows 8 or Desktop environment. Yes, it seems to be notable and useful, but it's not encyclopedic. How many lists do we need on Wikipedia, anyway? This whole article could be summed up in a single sentence: "The removal of the start menu in Windows 8 was controversial, and software to restore that functionality has become popular." Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think the article is easily notable and it's already been nominated twice, which is a bit vindictive, and found to be a keeper. A very large business opportunity was handed to the third party software engineering sector when windows 8 was released. The article show the response to this. It is a visual indication of the work done in response to Microsoft's failed business model (in this instance) Keep it intact. scope_creep talk 18:14 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong Keep - if this article was recreated after an AFD (delete), it was speedy deleted again after WP:CSD#G4 – this AFD should be speedy deleted too. Christian75 (talk) 19:47, 29 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) 02:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per above, Clearly notable & worth keeping, I fail to see why CL has renominated this again considering she only nominated it 7 months ago & so in June 2014 I won't be at all surprised if I see her renominating the article again. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the good idea. Any reason why I shouldn't? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, WP:LISTN and WP:NTEMP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems ok. Fotaun (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is very useful and does no harm. IMHO Wikipedia should have providing useful accurate up-to-date information like this as its highest priority. John259 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's lots of such programs, and obviously a lot of demand. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 00:02, 10 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Westland School (Los Angeles)[edit]

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

Elementary school. Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bel Air, Los Angeles#Schools. I have not found the sources needed to meet WP:ORG but per WP:BEFORE the final sentence is suitable to be merged. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge now boldly carried out. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Known not only for its place in the development of the Bel Air educational corridor but also for being the first progressive school on the west coast (see: "Pioneering School Marks 50th Year", Los Angeles Times, February 16, 1999)(see also: [8]). Was known as a haven for the children of blacklisted writers: see, e.g. [9] (p.101). Founded by (among others) the noted child psychologist Marie Briehl (as mentioned in her New York Times obit here). I think this one is worth keeping. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:16, 20 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) 01:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I added several of the references found by Arxiloxos to the article, and more could be added. I think this may be the unusual case of an elementary school that really is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 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) 02:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The general notability guidelines are met so we may presume an article is merited. I see no overriding reason why we should not have an article in this case. The merge carried out (see above), while satisfactory in itself, in no way gives adequate coverage to the topic and any fuller treatment would unbalance the Bel Air, Los Angeles article. This nomination seems to me misconceived by assuming an inherent lack of notability for elementary schools. Thincat (talk) 12:29, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Duke Mason[edit]

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

Non-notable individual that fails the notability standards, per WP:Notability (people) (more precisely, WP:Notability (people)#Entertainers) and WP:Notability. Previously deleted several times for the same reason, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Duke Mason, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Mason (son of Belinda Carlisle) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Duke Mason (2nd nomination). Sundostund (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't see any references in notable sources, but there is a lot of reference to him as a gay activist, and some references to him as an actor. Borderleinish! Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fence - well the Koreans have an article on him, who are we to judge. Honestly, he is "somewhat" notable and i'm using the term "somewhat" very loosely. Some of the 'claims' in his article needs to be investigated such as being a "official surrogate for the campaign of Barack Obama" and his education background. As an actor, he is not even on the radar (his IMDB starmeter is in the 77,000 range). I'm on the fence because of his "somewhat" notability. I will vote for deletion if the 2 notions i pointed above is false or vote for keep if significant source are added to them..--Stemoc (talk) 03:04, 20 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) 01:41, 27 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) 02:17, 3 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) 00:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sproose[edit]

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

The company referenced does not exist any longer and the article appears to have been a fluff piece anyway Renaissongsman (talk) 16:59, 16 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the company no longer exists is not an issue - many articles are about entities which no longer exist, this is not a reason for deletion. The 'fluffery' can be dealt with by editing - AfD is not in place of tidy up. There are at least a couple of decent references, pieces written by staffers on CNET, etc, which would seem to indicate that the company should meet notability criteria - so the article should be tidied up, not deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As noted above, comapny seemed to have gained some notability. Definitely needs updating and cleanup. A merge might also be worth considering.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:04, 28 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) 02:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough reliable sources cover to show that this site had enough notability to pass the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:38, 5 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RevolutionBoston[edit]

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

Non-noteworthy radio network group. Not about an actual station, just a group of people who deal with radio. Lacks multiple reliable sources about the organization. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article does need additional references and to be updated but to non-noteworthy is inaccurate. The Patriot Ledger Newspaper discussing the formation of the radio group with their initial station WWZN AM 1510 in Quincy, Massachusetts.

The Patriot Ledger article brief about the launch of RevolutionBoston.

Writer from The Boston Phoenix Newspaper appearing on the Jeff Santos Show AM 1510 Revolution Boston to discuss the article (located at the bottom of the article).

Business Wire article on the launch of RevolutionBoston's Rebuild America in Miami, FL and also lists several other affiliates around the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progress22 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, only the local Patriot Ledger piece is about RevolutionBoston. Still fails multiple, reliable sources necessary for notability and building an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 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) 02:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is out of date; WWZN, which formerly existed as a mainly brokered station this group bought time from to program the listed schedule, now is WUFC and now mainly carries sports and paid sports programming. Thus here, it's just a bunch of brokered programming that has to pay to get on the radio, usually never notable criteria for a radio show or radio program block, and in its current form with just one show, has the notability of an average podcast. Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 3 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 merge to TwinBee (series). Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop'n TwinBee (Game Boy)[edit]

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

Not a notable product Boleyn (talk) 21:42, 26 October 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) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then redirect to main series article, TwinBee (series). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say a video game released by a major company for a major system is probably notable. There are probably print sources that we're overlooking. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said in my edit resume, this game is part of a popular video game series (TwinBee) from a relevant company (Konami) released for an important platform Game Boy. ~~In my humble opinion, there are hundreds of articles about less notable video games so, if this article deserves deletion, many other less notable video game articles should be deleted before.~~ --Canyq (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A game linked to a notable series/notable developper/notable console doesn't mean the game itself is notable. We're not arguing the notability of Twinbee (series), Konami nor Game Boy, but the standalone notabilit of this particular subject. I that notability is not being established, but I agree with you that the series is notable, hence my suggestion to merge. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: Ok, it seems that the first part of my reasoning isn't valid for notability either. Therefore, I'll retire my vote for keeping and abstain from voting, even if I still think that the game is notable enough. Anyway, if the problem is finding a printed reference, I found this. --Canyq (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may well be less notable article, but we cannot keep non-notable articles just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Boleyn (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the first part of my argument is still true. --Canyq (talk) 15:33, 28 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) 02:13, 3 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Rival Roller Derby[edit]

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

Non-notable local roller derby squad. 26,000 Google hits, but none of them seem very good. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 03:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any significant media coverage either. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hmmm, I'm seeing 26+k Google hits for the exact phrase to choose from. Passes GNG. For example, THIS is from the Pinellas Park Beacon via the Tampa Bay Newspapers website. VIDEO from Tampa Bay Fox-13TV covering the league's skater recruitment. WFLA-Channel 8 on the Junior division of Deadly Rival Roller Derby. Copious ongoing coverage via Examiner.com — a site with blacklisted links on WP so I won't try, but suitable for helping research and document a more developed article... Note that this is a league, not a team. Carrite (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A "league" with two teams, garnering local coverage only. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - At a certain point a major metropolitan area transcends "local coverage", and WP:PERSISTENCE past a certain point overcomes that as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - in roller derby, the term league refers to a local organisation with one or more teams, rarely more than four; having two (or even one) is not unusual and does not indicate anything about the league's notability. Warofdreams talk 01:33, 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, BusterD (talk) 05:08, 26 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) 02:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG and Carrite. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:07, 6 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 to delete/redirect, default to keep. No firm consensus to delete or redirect this article has been established, and it would appear through the below the discussion that several sources have been provided which would warrant this article's preservation. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Duerr[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. May be worthwhile as redirect to Resurrect Dead: The Mystery of the Toynbee Tiles, a documentary he was featured on, but not independently notable. Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Seems some people were a bit enthusiastic about the film, but Duerr is not currently notable. All substantial coverage about him is mainly in connection to the film. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added five additional references that I believe pass WP:RS - additionally, the film itself constitutes a WP:RS about Duerr, as he is partially the film's subject. The idea that Duerr is not "currently" notable doesn't hold water - please remember that Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic, and that being "notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.^[1] Please feel free to check the references I added to see if they meet the criteria for WP:RS and constitute significant independent coverage of Duerr, specifically regarding his art and music. (Roomsmoody1924 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to the film. I don't know. I feel this could go either way, but I'm leaning toward a redirect. Any coverage that could be considered significant seems tied to the film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going to err on the side of caution here because multiple sources are provided. When leaning in a any one direction it is best to keep rather than redirect to the an article that is less likely to integrate it in a merge. We have coverage outside the film and that is enough to adequately cover a small article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, just adding the thought that if the article is merged, the content specifically related to his music, zines, or art would likely need to be cut, as it's unrelated the film, (though the film does mention his art briefly) but there are multiple third-party references here that justify/support this small article on Duerr being kept intact for this aforementioned content. (Roomsmoody1924 (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per ChrisGualtieri and Roomsmoody1924. Fitnr 21:52, 8 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) 02:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added another citation just to bolster the article a bit more. I think there are plenty of good citations available to possibly expand the article a little, and certainly enough to support it as is. I'd be up for doing more work on this article if it is kept. (Roomsmoody1924 (talk) 04:58, 10 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) 05:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Stevens (photographer)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Prod removed last year as numerous Google hits, although unclear if all the same Craig Stevens (photographer), may need to be examined at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant sources. Savannah College of Art and Design appears to be engaged in a PR campaign to promote its staff and itself on Wikipedia. All their articles and BLPs need to be looked at. Activities like this are sometimes engaged in by lower ranking institutions. They usually result in embarrassment and grief. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep add new sources. Won an award, it's a new award but is significant from who the award is from, American Society of Media Photographers, as a lifetime achievement, and he was sole recipient. Has a piece in the museum of the Chicago Art Institute;[10] unable to verify the other collections. Solo exhibit in Savannah recently with news coverage;[11] considering his 25 year career, there are probably many more exhibits. Multiple sources for GNG purposes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to find [2], but it's only a local paper. More would help. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The link to the "Susan Carr Educator Prize" is misleading because that actually points to the American Society of Media Photographers article. It should be corrected to something like the "Susan Carr Educator Prize from the American Society of Media Photographers" or some such. With regard to weighing Stevens' notability, the actual significance of this award is debatable, because it was just founded this year and does not itself seem to be covered by secondary sources. Agricola44 (talk) 21:55, 28 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) 02:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a new award, the "Susan Carr Educator Prize" has not yet had a chance to become significant (I can find very little documentation of it except for some websites), so I don't think this adds much to the notability argument. While it does appear that AIC owns one of his prints, their database indicates it is not on display, suggesting it is not one of their significant holdings. I did some further searching, but could not find any additional obvious WP:RS aside from the local Savannah newspaper source mentioned above. Cardamom's speculation about the existence of more sources or exhibits may be correct, but remains unconfirmed. I think we would really be straining to keep this, especially since it is a BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 4 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. Notability not established by the editor requesting the article's preservation. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MiJournal[edit]

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

Per WP:NSOFT, reliable, third-party sources should discuss software as "significant in its particular field" or it should be "the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews". I couldn't find any third-party review beyond the one cited, and that establishes it as quite insignificant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This software is significant in it's particular field due to it's feature set. While encryption, regex search, and syncing are all common feature available in many applications, the combination of these features in diary applications is unique. With regard to being "the subject of multiple printed third party manuals," it is unclear how this application is any less significant than much of the referenced software in the existing List_of_Macintosh_software quick examples: CandyBar,AppZapper,MarcoPolo_(software),etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulmar2 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages' notability problems are no reason to include this one. I agree that there's a lot of mini-articles discussing minor apps; I've already PROD'd one of them. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 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, BusterD (talk) 04:19, 26 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) 02:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSOFT. I found links to downloads and BLOGS but no reliable sources except the one already contained within the article. Perhaps it's TOOSOON, in which case perhaps this could be considered a SOFTDELETE for de-PRODing again in the future if/when notability is clearly established. -- Trevj (talk) 01:48, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circle 7 logo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources do not mention the logo itself. Article tagged for notability since 2009 with no improvement. The only hits on Google Books were books that reprint Wikipedia articles. No sourcing found that discusses the concept of this logo in general. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what is sourced and redirect to ABC Owned Television Stations; oone or two paragraphs should easily fit into that article basically saying 'the Channel 7 stations have this logo'. It's been culled down from the gallery mess it was in 2006 (one I admit I supported before our fair use policies became more defined), so it's become a much tighter read, but still could be tighter. Nate • (chatter) 05:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 18 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) 00:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By Googling the search phrase "Circle 7 logo ABC" without the quotes, I found significant coverage of the logo in two books, and have added those references to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 26 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) 02:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ABC Owned Television Stations No one has been able to improve this in 4 years, it really doesn't seem like something that deserves its own entry and I'd argue it will even see more views if merged into a less obscure article. TomKoenig (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment TomKoenig, someone did improve the article. Me. Read it and take a look at the article history, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It requires better references still, there are three (two working), the first is an old magazine scan that I can't get much out of, the second is an obituary with a brief mention of it and the third is a dead link. Without the references, it's a merge at best.TomKoenig (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at the actual references, TomKoenig, or the non-standard sources section? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 8 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) 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wish Gone Amiss Weekend[edit]

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

Lingering Disney Channel Original Series cruft dealing with a block of three of the network's series having episodes revolving around shooting star wishes in 2007 and airing on the same weekend, but unlike many of these events, there were no crossovers, just three versions of the same plot. Likely nobody else besides the kidvid crufters cared in 2007, and they don't now in 2013, and when they do air, certainly not in a block. Sources are press releases, a copyvio YouTube vid of a promo, and a review from a Disney-centric site that despite their Disney bias thought marketing the episodes as a DVD release was 'banal' and 'hackneyed', along with the usual overlong plot synopses which don't belong here. Only links are into templates, 'list of episodes' articles and lingering episode articles yet to be merged into their season articles. Nate • (chatter) 03:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 18 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) 00:54, 26 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) 02:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:40, 10 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 Agnes Horvath. Content can be merged from the article history. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Political Anthropology[edit]

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

Article recreated without many changes after having been deleted following a PROD, so this should be regarded as a de-PRODded article and therefore we are now at AFD. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database (nor, apparently, in any other database either). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 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, Cerebellum (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is young, articles in the journal seem to be cited fairly regularly. Is this a good indicator of notability? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles on Google Scholar have indeed decent citation rates. I think that means that there is a good chance that this may become notable in the future, but not yet now. --Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article provides useful information and links about academic journal and It can be considered as a Wikipedia page. It should be not deleted 95.83.253.15 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Uncertain I am not sure that this is a primary research journal in the usual sense, in which case the criterion of indexing may not be appropriate. This does seem to have published notable authors, and its principal editor, Horvath, is clearly notable. However, the other two editors are less so. The site is currently down, so I cannot check further. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

further comment Rereading the article, the content is so promotional it would take rewriting. I think the best course at the moment is redirect to Agnes Horvath -- the article on her already mentions the journal. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge a few basic facts to Agnes Horvath I was unable to find indexing sources to meet WP:NJournals criteria or independent reliable sources for WP:GNG. It doesn't seem to pass any notability criteria for WP:MAGAZINE either. Lack of results might just be my ignorance of how indexing is done in this interdisciplinary form of anthropology. Nonetheless, the existence of and some uncontroversial facts about the journal (e.g., established 2008, who publishes it, OCLC number) are verifiable. Per WP:PRESERVE, it would be best to preserve verifiable information. I agree with DGG that Agnes Horvath is the best target for such a merge. --Mark viking (talk) 01:39, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultraman Mebius monsters[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot details that does not need to exist in its current form. The characters mostly only appear in a single episode each, so an episode list would be the ideal place to describe them. There is no real use in merging the information or converting this article due to the nature of the writing, so someone would be better off to start from scratch were they to make an episode list. TTN (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or merge to Ultra Monsters. Lists like this are in fact the preferred format for this sort of fictional element, because while individually the list's subjects are not notable, as a group, they are, and given the length of the page this might well be a valid WP:SPINOUT of Ultra Monsters. While the list in its current state is indeed deplorably crufty, plot-heavy and unreferenced as per the nominator's rationaile, those are issues to be resolved through cleanup, not deletion, and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a limit to what needs to be covered with fictional subjects. Lists of things like non-plot related video game bosses, one-off characters, inconsequential plot devices, and such elements are all too in-depth for a general encyclopedia. These characters are mostly those who are the focus of only a single episode where they are only plot devices for the characters to fight, much like the costumed villains in Scooby-Doo or minor characters introduced just to be one-episode murder victims on dramas. They are relevant to the episode, but not the overall series. TTN (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS disagrees. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? There are probably hundreds of such lists, but hundreds have also been deleted over time as well. WP:NOTPLOT should be followed in that the lists needs to correspond to the proper level of plot detail needed to properly summarize for the understanding of the reader. Lists of main characters can be called necessary, but something like this, which should be covered in an episode list, is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this "could be covered in an episode list" doesn't work, because that would violate WP:UNDUE. Episode lists are about the episodes, not for summaries of the monsters appearing in them. As I mentioned above this is a WP:SPINOUT of Ultra Monsters and, if not kept, should go back into there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of information these need is limited to a few sentences that can easily fit into a summary. This isn't like a regular character list where overall descriptions of the characters help to complement the plot summaries, but it is instead a collection of minute details relevant only to fans. For a general reader, "Monster X with unique attribute Y attacks for reason Z" is about all we need to describe. There has to be a cutoff for characters deemed too minor to actually detail, and this should be it for this series. TTN (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Excessive fictional detail listing without real-world demonstrated importance. There's little that is appropriate to merge up, and the title is not a reasonable search term. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 17 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:40, 26 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) 02:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge—fails WP:GNG for a standalone article. N2e (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- standalone lists are articles and so need to meet WP:V and WP:GNG the same as other articles do, and this one is nothing but unreferenced in-universe plot summary. The parent article is already heavy on cruft and would be even worse if anything here were merged into it. Reyk _YO! 05:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - I'm more inclined with delete, Both article & List have far too much detail, Plus as above the List fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:02, 6 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. Sources include adequate verification. Editor is encouraged to improve the work. JodyB_talk 22:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zandspruit Bush & Aero Estate[edit]

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

This is a borderline WP:CSD#G11 case, but I thought I'd bring it here instead. The article is almost entirely sourced to press releases from the company's own website and is stuffed full of peacock phrases and is effectively a barely veiled ad. The only real claim to notability is first development in the world to combine airstrip and game reserve, that doesn't seem a strong enough claim to have an article. I can find no coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Valenciano (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous references listed, some from high profile independent aviation orientated magazines.. these articles are available for reference from the Zandspruit website as otherwise you would need to be subscribed to the magazines to read them on line and direct links to the appropriate pages would not be possible. I urge you to please read through some of the reference material which is conveniently located on the Zandspruit website - http://www.zandspruit.co.za/news.html as a central repository for numerous media articles referring in great detail to the development.

Note, there are a number of "Airpark" articles with far less notability and considerably less reference material available for view from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-in_community#Some_notable_airparks Of the airparks listed there only 2 of the articles have more than 3 references...

Please review in detail before deleting this article. I have only just made it live and intend to do more work on it over time. Constructive criticism, guidance and assistance is most welcome. Please assist accordingly.

Quadtripplea (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had every intention of working more on this article right now, but will now wait so as not to waste my time if someone is going to just delete what I have done so far.

I am of the humble and honest opinion that the nomination for deletion was a bit hasty.

Quadtripplea (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You don't need to have the sources readable online; in fact, it's prefereable to link directly to the original sources. See WP:PAYWALL, WP:OFFLINE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find four sources among that unfortunate wall of primary sources, that are otherwise reliable and independent. They are: LookLocal African PilotSA FlyerPilot's Post. Sources used more than once only count as a single source for AfD notability purposes (eg. multiple articles in African Pilot are not going to increase the topics notability). The claim that it is the world's first residential airpark with a game reserve is supported by the sources. I believe this is interesting enough and the sources are good enough for WP:GNG. The article does display some classic WP:PUFF symptoms such as "lots of footnotes to non-reliable sources" (in this case primary sources), picturesque sales brochure language "[the] River meanders through the estate" and excessive details on how to access and other stuff that doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article, rather a sales brochure or marketing website somewhere. But that is all editing concern and the core topic appears notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next Step - have made changes inline with comments. Please advise of next step and WRT removal of tags at the top of the article.

Note - SA Flyer and African Pilot articles require log on, subscription and payment in order to view through their main websites. For ease of reference media articles are published in pdf format on the website for Zandspruit.

Who can remove the Categories: All articles lacking reliable references, All articles with a promotional tone, Articles for deletion, Articles lacking reliable references from October 2013, and Articles with a promotional tone from October 2013 ? Quadtripplea (talk) 10:24, 21 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:42, 26 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) 02:03, 3 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 Comparison of open-source configuration management software. It is unclear that the article attains notability status. I rechecked via JSTOR and Lexis/Nexis and found nothing. The references in the article are often to the company/group itself. The videos are not, in my judgement sufficient to verify notability. Since the material is already included elsewhere a REDIRECT seems most appropriate. JodyB_talk 17:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rundeck (software)[edit]

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

The article was created using only primary sources, barely asserting notability. My search for reliable sources of verification indicate this subject fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I originally proposed deletion if the guidelines were not satisfied using the PROD template but the article's creator contested the PROD by removing the tag. I suggest the article be deleted unless notability can be established. —John Cline (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability provided in the article or found through multiple searches; fails WP:NSOFT. (The WP:SPA article creator has also added the article text into Comparison of open-source configuration management software; it is questionable whether it has merit in remaining both there and in this freestanding article.) AllyD (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to show evidence of notability and of significant community of interest, I added references from multiple third parties, multiple recorded presentations from conferences that use peer review for talk acceptance, and link to 500+ person discussion group with regular activity. All were found in first few pages of Google searches. Comparing this page to those linked to from Comparison of open-source configuration management software (as referenced above by AllyD), the notability for this project seems higher than most others on that list (not stating this as proof of notability, just trying to understand what the measure of notability is for this field). Damonedw (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 18 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) 00:32, 26 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) 02:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent subject per Damonedw's comment that the subject is already covered there. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candleabracadabra : my intention in pointing out that list was in seeking clarification of what is considered notable in this field. I believe that Rundeck is notable on its own and redirecting to such a broad list would do a disservice to the community. Damonedw (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I heard about it in a meeting inside my company, and this is not my field. I just needed to know what it is, and with a little search on WP, pronto, there it was, with all the details and links I needed to just understand what it is and what it does. If it was deleted, as suggested, I may not have found in WP and would have to widen my search outside WP in order to find it. warshy ^¥¥ 19:39, 4 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. There is no doubt that this is a close call but the article is supported by verifiable coverage in reliable sources. Keep. JodyB_talk 21:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Peace[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability and no reputable sources at all. Previous attempts to deal with this by a re-direct into an overarching article have been met with restoration of content here by an IP editor. A merge and re-direct still looks the best option Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Buddy Peace has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". 114.145.97.108 (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - where are these "..multiple , non-trivial published works..."? They are not referenced in the article and I had a look before nominating for deletion and couldn't see them. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are short reviews of one of a joint work (he laid down the backing track?) in Sputnikmusic and MTV, which are multiple and non-trivial sources. But considering he's hardly mentioned and I can't see anything else of note about him in non-blog sources, I don't think that's sufficient to support an article, or meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:40, 18 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) 00:33, 26 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) 02:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The subject has been interviewed at least a couple of times.[12][13] Looks good enough to me, and I stopped searching after finding those two, so there could be more. -- Trevj (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just now spotted that the 2nd of those is already in the article, but my comments stand. -- Trevj (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Sionk, as the above sources provided by Trevj do not seem to establish the required notability for these articles. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:57, 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 merge to Comparison of reference management software. v/r - T P 02:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ColWiz[edit]

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

I could find exactly one non-affiliated source that is not somebody's blog (which I cited), so the notability criteria of WP:NSOFT have not been met unless someone finds a second one. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, even after editing the page from an ad to something article-like. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 18 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) 00:15, 26 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) 02:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Comparison of reference management software. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Merge per Candleabracadabra - Pointillist (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep—I see two references in the article now, and unless we are calling the Spinouts reference unreliable, I think that's enough to show notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Comparison of reference management software - I'm not sure that the Spinouts article is enough to show notability, as it is only a short mention (a couple of paragraphs). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:48, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti dynamite[edit]

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

Unremarkable person Martinian^{Leave a message!} 11:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs sources to show she passes WP:ARTIST, so far this is clearly not the case. Ping me if reliable sources are added and I can revisit this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (after sources added). Has generated non-trivial coverage in mainstream national media, per WP:BASIC. Hqb (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 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) 00:35, 26 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) 01:59, 3 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Pelty[edit]

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

Deprodded by a user who said it should be AfD'd. Non-notable person. No independent sources, BLP. Speciate (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the Deprodder. After seeing this at WP:CHIAA, I just felt this should be given full consideration based on some marginal sources that I had found: [14], [15], [16], [17]. I thought possibly other sources existed that a full AFD review might uncover.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 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) 00:25, 26 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) 01:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And a clear keep. It took me 10 mins to add 3 sources, and I'm slow, mind you, so the notion that we should delete per insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources is ... well. Judging from the sources this guy is well up to WP:ENT. Sam Sailor ^Sing 02:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adding to TonyTheTigers list of possible refs, here is one more, an article from 1997 which gives a good glimpse of his career.[18] Sam Sailor ^Sing 03:08, 10 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Rossi[edit]

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

An article on this subject was deleted as A7 in September 2012 and was re-created about two weeks later. The sources presently in the article are links to shows he has appeared on etc., but there doesn't seem to be any coverage at all in third party sources that would establish notability. Google just pulls up Facebook, Linked-in, and the like. Diannaa (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A professional pundit [media consultant]. The punditry alone not sufficient, need to see sources about the pundit, that are independent of the pundit's sources. The book is not notable, lacks multiple reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:02, 18 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) 00:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF #7 "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." That seems to be the case here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:13, 26 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) 01:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. He not frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert, so he does not satisfy that criterion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's very often quoted. Do a Google Video search to start. Go to his personal website and look at his media appearances page. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:54, 3 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. If a rename is determined necessary at a later time, any editor may do so. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vagbhatananda Gurudevar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG - I can find no sources other than mirrors etc. In situations such as this we quite often redirect to an institution that the subject founded but in this particular instance we do not have articles for those either and, frankly, they too seem unlikely to be notable. Sitush (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I was unaware of the prior AfD for this subject. However, I'm not finding much in the sources that were raised there. For example, this one contains merely a namecheck in one sentence of a paragraph that contains the names of other people also. That sort of thing is far too skimpy for GNG and it is repeated in the Peasantry, Nationalism, and Social Change in India source that was raised. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this and some others, which look better. The key seems to be that his WP:COMMONNAME is Vagbhatananda rather than Vagbhatananda Gurudevar. I think the solution here is to rename the article - I'll expand it. - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why dont you check this link for details? and this too. Actually i have done a search of words 'Vagbhatananda narayana guru' in books.google.com which fetched close to 100 results.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see http://books.google.com/books?id=iJvx0KWpf-UC&pg=PA98 "No doubt, that he had a signficant role in the growth of society in North Malabar", quote by E. M. S. Namboodiripad. Moreover, a biography for him was written in 1971 ([19], published by the "Institute of Vagbhatananda Memorial Research"!), there's some sort a memorial hall in his name ([20]), etc. --Soman (talk) 20:46, 19 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) 00:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from searching not a lot is available in english, the society that the subject founded has a website that is in a foriegn language, but from the little searching I did, looks like is a Keep but more diligence has to be done. --Nlfestival (talk) 19:21, 26 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) 01:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Narayana Guru. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles such as this one should be sufficient to establish (rel world) notability and write a short articleon the subject. I am neutral as to whether the article is written under the current title, or under Atmavidya Sangham, the organization he founded and is closely identified with. Abecedare (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, based on the sources listed above and in the previous AfD. -- Trevj (talk) 01:03, 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. The key is "several books" and "widely used." I am afraid neither applies here. JodyB_talk 22:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Wickham (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I found coverage of the subject, but in blogs, which don't satisfy WP:RS. Other mentions of the subject are in relation to the subject's company, Kauffman Fellows Program. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two of his books are used as textbooks in university syllabus per WP:PROF #4. Management Consulting and Strategic Entrepreneurship: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] He is President (and Fellow) of Kauffman Fellows Program which is a non-profit educational institution per PROF #6. His speaking engagements might qualify under PROF #1 (need to research). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:44, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 04:39, 26 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) 01:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His books are not widely held -- Strategic Entrepreneurship is in only 184 libraries, and Management consulting in 84. That he is president of his own private educational institution is not notability ; The use of his books in courses is not clear; some are universities totally unknown to me, some merely one of a long list of recommended reading, some only distance education projects of unknown importance, some small branches of universities. That a person gives speeches is not proof of notability under WP:PROF or any other criterion. In this world, almost everyone capable of speaking gives speeches. There is no notability here, just promotion. I ry to use WP:PROF as widely as possible, but accepting this makes a joke out of WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:PROF #4 ".. may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education."

Chiang Mai University, book in course syllabus for MGMT 541[29]
Universiteti i Prishtinës, book in course syllabus for "Entrepreneurship"[30]
Grand Valley State University, textbook for course "Global Entrepreneurship" (pg. 20-21)[31]
University of Wisconsin, textbook for course MGT 485 "Small Business Consulting"[32]
University of Technology, Sydney, main/only textbook used for course 21228/15195020 Management Consulting[33] (pg. 3)
York College of Pennsylvania, textbook for course ENT 450 "Small Business Consulting"[34]

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is that all you can find? It's trivial. I call that "scattered use", not "wide use". DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syllabus' are ephemeral online documents, they come and go by their nature, this number is pretty good based on my experience of searching for syllabus', and it is global coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC. The only news coverage I found was linked to a visit to Wales promoting his views/expertise. There seems to be no independently published information about the subject himself. -- Trevj (talk) 00:53, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MiniMonos[edit]

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

The game fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while some of the sources look like press releases, at least [35] is solid and the review from DIY father looks good. Hobit (talk) 22:08, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 23:28, 26 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) 01:51, 3 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peon Ek Chaprasi[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be any coverage of this film, outside of user-driven websites such as IMDb, Facebook, and Twitter. Fails notability for films. Diannaa (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep sounds like it is being filmed right now, if it already has traffic on IMDB, Facebook and Twitter, definately does not pass WP:GNG, maybe in a position after release or as it gets closer to. --Nlfestival (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per WP:NFF reliable sources are required to confirm principal photography has commenced. There is no evidence that the production of the film is notable on it's own (which is needed to meet WP:NFF). Maybe after it has been released notability can be demonstrated, but at the moment it isn't notable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please read the news http://www.trikarpurnews.com/demo/index.php?do=articles&id=8609&catid=4 about Peon Ek Chaprasi also IMDb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3244746 a valid page Iwritingoes (talk) 10:20, 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) 01:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a short film with a budget of $2000 US dollars currently being filmed in India. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage for inclusion at the moment. When the film is released and gets coverage, an article may be appropriate. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:56, 11 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. Will be moved to Gantali Pora leaving a redirect (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gantaliepora[edit]

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

Does not have sources, google search (for me) comes up with only one result, which is this article. Gmaps search comes up wth no results. No coords or precise location mentioned, although i'm not exactly sure what tehsil means. The article on it is a little bit confusing. Benboy00 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Non-standard spellings of titles for articles like this are unfortunately common. GMaps shows Gantali Pora as being an area a kilometre or two east of Bijbehara, but seems to show no further information. PWilkinson (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Gantali Pora. It's now a verified village. —SpacemanSpiff 05:08, 26 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, BusterD (talk) 23:31, 26 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) 01:48, 3 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Parys[edit]

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

Previously deleted article for A7, no change in article since then, even fewer evidence and information of notability has been provided. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --While media coverage and info about his life seem to be nill, WP:MUSBIO says: if the subject has "had a single or album on any country's national music chart" it may be considered notable enough for an article and he appears to have several. [36]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 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) 01:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no major reliable sources in article. Wizardman 19:12, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Deathcore Bands[edit]

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

No claims or evidence of notability, no real content aside from the list itself. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 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) 01:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't even have a Christian Deathcore article, and I suspect this genre doesn't exist and the band names are mainly WP:MADEUP. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 3 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. Wifione ^Message 09:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan E. Rodriguez[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Notability seems dubious. Creator IvanEComposer seems to be in a conflict-of-interest. bender235 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 28 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) 01:46, 3 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. Wifione ^Message 09:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iván Enrique Rodríguez[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Notability seems dubious. Creator IvanEComposer seems to be in a conflict-of-interest. bender235 (talk) 22:55, 27 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) 01:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. --Jmundo (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly self-promotion (he is likely attempting to find a job with it), reliable sources can't be found because they don't exist, not even when searching in Spanish. It can probably get a speedy deletion per A7, since it hardly seems controversial. His pictures should be deleted as well, to prevent "reanimation". - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: please remember there's also this duplicate. --bender235 (talk) 16:31, 6 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. Cetainly not a "must have" article, but the sourcing of ownership of large, well-known business such as WebSense is enough to now meet WP:NCORP (non-admin closure) ES &L 12:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Equity Partners[edit]

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

Primary source references, no significant secondary sources provided. heather walls (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete if not significantly improved. Per DGG's contesting of my PROD a few weeks ago and my limited research since then, this company may be sufficiently notable, but this article does not show it. Either improve it or if the clock expires first, delete and start over. If the result is delete, I have no objection to incubation, userfication, or something similar provided that the page does not re-enter main-space without some type of peer review (e.g. WP:AFC). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like much of the self-sourced promotion is out of the article now. Does need to be beefed up a bit, but this company has been around long enough and done some notable deals already, that it should be able to be rescued. And I think citing press releases as sources would be better than just deleting the content, provided the wording in the article is paraphrased into neutral tone, and there are enough other sources to show notability. Primary sources are not outlawed, just articles that rely on them exclusively. It is a private company, but has acquired several public ones, so citing the SEC filings of those companies and independent articles in trade publications should suffice. Might take some work, but no excuse to destroy the article. W Nowicki (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bit more has been added to the article, I hope in a neutral tone with a variety of sources. They appear to be one of the largest private equity companies in the world that specializes in software, with several billion-dollar deals a year. Article still needs more work, but the company sounds notable. W Nowicki (talk) 19:29, 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) 01:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Superficially, this looks like a "must have" article for Wikipedia, and it seems adequately sourced. The company is gigantic and influential, so it would be a shame to see it deleted from the record. - CoLocate (talk) 00:39, 7 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. Appears to meet requirements to Keep as per vaild RS found - note: this should be considered a rarity, not new jurisprudence for middle schools (non-admin closure) ES &L 12:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pershing Middle School (Houston)[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school. Attempt to redirect to parent school district was reverted. Recommend WP:REDIRECT to List of Houston Independent School District schools#Traditional middle schools per slight variation of school article guidelines WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG. The guidelines normally would recommend merging/redirecting to Houston Independent School District davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Nominator no longer supports changing, holding open only because another editor wants to redirect, see below davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - I am going to claim GNG. In other words, there are multiple reliable sources written about this school. There was an entire article about Pershing moving to a new school building. Another article was written on the history of the school. In smaller publication there was an article on chimney swifts in a pipe at the school and how the school had to keep the pipe intact (unfortunately the article did not archive in the wayback machine but I can see if I can call the editors of the paper which absorbed the West U Examiner and see if there is a way I can obtain an article). In the Houston Press there was an article on a teacher's urban farming program. That's four independent sources. If that is insufficient I could check microfilm catalogs at the Houston Public Library. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you are here to discuss this. In general, "local" coverage carries a lot less weight than non-local coverage when it comes to people an organizations. If "3 or 4 feature articles" from local sources were acceptable, any school that has been in existence for more than 30-40 years would easily qualify. I tend to discount articles of "local interest" such as one about the school moving, unless it was in an out-of-town paper. If the article on the history of the school was local, I would tend to discount it for the same reason. The article about the chimney Swifts and the urban farming program might sway me, but I would look at them from the point of view of "is this local coverage, the kind any school anywhere would get from its local paper if they had a similar bird population or a teacher with a similar novel program?" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Local coverage can and is a weighing factor. Two of the sources are more local publications but the other two are from the Houston Chronicle which is the "newspaper of record" of Greater Houston which is about 6 million people. There are entire countries with smaller populations than that. Enough local coverage, especially if it is from a newspaper of record, should be enough to prove notability. In regards to "any school that has been in existence for more than 30-40 years would easily qualify" - that's precisely the point, if one is willing to get article archives and do the work to show notability. I have been able to find extensive coverage on some surprising things and I prove notability that way. Now, WP:GNG discounts routine news coverage (such as regular football game statistics, announcements of starting the school year, etc., things that are expected). The natures of all four articles are not routine coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification by nominator I am not seeking to remove the page's history. Should the school meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG in the future, the existing page history would be a very good starting point. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was the one who had redirected it back in June and I hold to that. Since middle schools do not have the historic "automatic" notability outcomes (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) high schools do, the sourcing on a middle school would have to meet WP:ORG. A requirement of WP:ORG is that the sourcing be both in detail and geographically diverse. There is one notability type ref on this page from outside of Houston, but that just cited this school among many in a larger article about the trend toward schools of choice. IMHO, that does not speak to notability. All in all, there just isn't the information to say that this middle school has the notability required for an independent article. It appears to be just a run of the mill middle school. All public schools will receive coverage in local papers; that is just a fact of life. The school article guidelines were formally approved by the entire community and as such, their notability standard should be respected. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From my understanding GNG is something that is applied very broadly and can affect anything. If something is considered to be within GNG, then it is notable, even if it fails "subject-specific" guidelines. If this article doesn't pass WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but it passes WP:GNG then it should be considered notable. Also, while schools receive coverage, often coverage is routine (unusable for notability purposes). The trick is to find non-routine news coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found a memoir that talks about Pershing but it was published by AuthorHouse. That's a self-publishing outfit so I can't use it. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update #2: Here you go. I found a book published by a reputable publisher which talks about the school:
- Ouchi, William G. Making Schools Work: A Revolutionary Plan to Get Your Children the Education They Need. Simon and Schuster, June 24, 2008. ISBN 1439108102, 9781439108109. p. 149.
I have added information from this book, which uses Pershing as a case study in education. I hope this is sufficient for it to be declared notable in addition to the local coverage.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the significant coverage needed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator changing to keep per the Ouchi book. When and if all participants here are willing to say "keep" this can be closed as "speedy keep/withdrawn," otherwise keep the disucssion open for the full time period. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now meets WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well written and sourced suitably. Its references indicate notability per WP:GNG. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mention as one of a number of examples in a book just means that it's being chosen as typical, not as notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The truth of this statement depends on the book and the usage. Two books about golf courses may exist. One may have the 20 golf courses that are the best examples of certain features, another may have 20 golf courses that are typical examples of certain features. I haven't read this book well enough to know if the author chose selectively or randomly when picking this school for inclusion. I trust you did. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the book, the book title "Making Schools Work" and the chapter seems to deal with schools that the author believes have beneficial academic programs that increase student performance. For example on page 144 in the same chapter the author discusses Cornelius Elementary and he explains why he believes the school is successful. It does not seem like "luck of the draw" to me. In addition, Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline: states:
- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "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.[1]"
Therefore if a series of books use a school as an example and write a lot of content about it, it means the school passes GNG because the content is "Significant coverage".

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:16, 9 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.

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29

[1]