Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 November	7 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 Binghamton University#Harpur's Ferry Student Volunteer Ambulance Service. Redirect would be the normal course here, especially when the group has a distinctive name that might be looked for. No objection to merging a small amount of the content, if desired. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harpur's Ferry[edit]

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

This group appears to lack the coverage in independent necessary to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The closest thing I could find was this story from Binghamton's local news. It looks like these students are doing some impressive work, but that doesn't make them notable. --BDD (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources listed are not independent, notability not established. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Binghamton University#Harpur's Ferry Student Volunteer Ambulance Service seems a normal action to produce a helpful redirect. Notability is not needed for redirects. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Binghamton University#Harpur's Ferry Student Volunteer Ambulance Service. I agree with TWW. Redirect seems a good idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- <grumble, grumble> OK, I'm not that experienced at AFD, but have started following medical deletion discussions. I don't care if it's a redirect or a delete (if that helps the closing admin). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (disclosure: COI)- This article seems to mirror many other entries in Category:Collegiate EMS Agencies or Category:Ambulance services in the United States. I wished the author added more references (Journal of EMS, recognitions from 80's and 90's) as well as proper referencing of the state and national awards. It is hard to be notable when privacy laws (see HIPPA) prevent you from announcing notable events.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this seems to be going to redirect, can the article be wp:userfy to me. I believe it can pass WP:ORG or similar with some work, but I cannot get to it before AfD expiration.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I were the deleting admin and you made that request, I'd grant it, so I have no objections to that either. The article simply shouldn't be kept in its current state (i.e., keep, no consensus, or a significant improvement). --BDD (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, redirection would be fine (we'd want to move the hatnote, however). The page history will allow merging for any interested editors, and in this case, it appears there's some content that could be merged. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Van Pope[edit]

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

Retired minor league ballplayer who never played a game in the majors; no exceptional third-party sources out there that would pass GNG. Wizardman 23:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No assertion of being a notable individual, as required per CSD A7. Simply being a professional baseball player is insufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unreferenced with questionable information about what he hopes to do... No evidence of any notability. Spanneraol (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as others.--Yankees10 17:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable or referenced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but willing to be convinced otherwise. He was covered in some detail here, here, here and here, which is a feature story on him. Alex (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some local coverage of a minor leaguer doesn't show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:20, 12 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. SarahStierch (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General rating of city appeal[edit]

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

Recently developed method (2012) with no sources and no Google-hits outside Wikipedia (limited to western script hits, no Google test with Russian script). Seems to fail WP:GNG. The Banner talk 10:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are given, although in Russian not English, which seem to establish the notability and importance of this rating. Following "assume good faith" I am going to assume the sources are genuine and that the article honestly reports what they say.BayShrimp (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Russian sources given in the article are all related to the Russian Union of Engineers, the "inventor" of this rating. No independent sources. The Banner talk 22:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously any articles about the rating are going to mention the creator of the rating. As far as I can tell though, at least two of those sources are independent in that they were written by a third party. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:40, 30 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) 19:04, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:51, 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 LGBT publications. No prejudice on Bearcat's redirect v/r - T P 17:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GayCalgary[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH or even the GNG. Google News did not turn up any hits. Delete or redirect to List of LGBT periodicals. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even the article on Frontiers doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. My own search turned up nothing by independent, reliable, third party sources on this one, only links to the magazine itself, its Facebook page, and its Twitter feed. KDS4444^Talk 23:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of LGBT publications is probably a little better than deleting - Magazines often talk about notable things but sometimes the magazines aren't notable themselves or rarely get news coverage about themselves. My first Google News search found some minor mentions and my second one found one of the previous links. I found a minor mention in an about.com link. I also haven't found anything third-party for the Lily Tomlin edition as well as the Jann Arden one. Considering I had found some Canadian news coverage (three articles from canada.com), I thought I'd look at local newspapers Calgary Herald and Calgary Sun but found nothing relevant. TheWeal.com link was from January 2012 and even then, I question the notability of that website. Nothing to improve this article but at least a redirect leaves the door open for the future if this magazine should become notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of LGBT publications, this way possibly more research could be done in the future, — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't more research always be done in the future? And a deletion decision is not a death sentence, it is a decision about notability which itself can always be reversed it notability can some day be established. Deletion is a closed door which can always be re-opened, not a nuclear bomb that destroys all future possibility. I think a redirect is a "un-bold" move given the lack of evidence of notability— once the subject of the article can stand on its own, let it; until then, let it not. KDS4444^Talk 23:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a particularly strong opinion about this one — for obvious reasons, I do try when I can to rescue LGBT-related Canadian topics, but this one's beyond even my mojo right now (although I'd be happy to hang onto it in my sandbox just in case some real sources eventually do turn up.) That said, I don't think redirecting it to List of LGBT publications is a helpful solution here, because that's an undifferentiated international list — it would be more appropriate, instead, to redirect to Media in Calgary. Bearcat (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary International Spoken Word Festival[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, no non-local reliable sources found. Tgeairn (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needs better sources. — Mr. V (t – c) 05:00, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has no sources because they appear not to exist. Tone is also blatant promotion. KDS4444^Talk 23:02, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saturdays (music series)[edit]

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

Not quite blatant enough for G11, but certainly seems very promotional and non-notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 00:18, 5 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't even find this event on a Google search, never mind in a reliable, independent, third-party publication. Tone is pretty clearly promotional, my guess is that the article was written by someone personally connected to the event, not the result of the event's independent notability. KDS4444^Talk 22:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Local music event at a local cafe and not only is the event new, it seems the cafe opened this year anyway (even much less on an article for the cafe) according to a local news article here. I also found another news article from that same news source here. Google News didn't find much until I did a different search and I found this (Canadian music magazine). I also found event listings including from artists' websites. I'd say it's too soon if this launched recently and they "hope to continue into 2014" (crystal ball). No prejudice towards a future article if this takes off. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 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. Feel free to improve the article or renominate if interested. SarahStierch (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Eurocup Mégane Trophy season[edit]

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

Can't find any confirmation, that this series will continue in 2014, so delete per WP:OR Cybervoron (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the source provided in the article confirms that the races will take place. Thus the nomination reason would seem to be invalid. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Where did you see the words Megane Trophy in the source? It confirms only FR3.5 Series, Eurocup FR2.0 and Eurocup Clio. Cybervoron (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 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, KTC (talk) 20:38, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:45, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Knight[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a few trivial articles that mentioned their reuniting, but noting that satisfies WP:MUSIC PaintedCarpet (talk) 20:17, 30 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail to meet notability guidelines. Article reads like an advertisement, which suggests it was only created for promotional purposes in the first place. KDS4444^Talk 22:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another under-the-radar obscurely known band. Numerous Google News searches failed to find something substantial aside from a minor review and their 2013 reunion. I'm assuming that they're so obscurely known that there isn't even an Allmusic page. There's a metal-archives.com link (that website tends to have little profiles these types of bands) but it's very minimal at most. There's very little to even improve this article with references. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumb Fox[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and all secondary coverage I can see is in passing and WP:ROUTINE; mostly announcements for upcoming concerts and the like. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:01, 30 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The two references currently used in the article are good sources but lack in-depth information (basically, a few sentences or paragraphs). My first Google News searches failed to find anything but another search found this (another recordnet.com link, but minor mention). Because this band seems to be based in the Sacramento-area, I searched The Sacramento Bee, Lodi News-Sentinel and Sacramento Magazine but found nothing. Basically, this looks like an indie band that has received little tidbits of news but nothing significant and even their album titles aren't serious (very mature, probably not something you'd read about in your local daily newspaper). Nonetheless, I went ahead and searched the "How Many Licks" album but found nothing reliable of course. Final searches didn't find anything either. SwisterTwister talk 17:16, 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 Orator (Cicero). SarahStierch (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delectare[edit]

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

non-notable dictionary definition Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Orator (Cicero), which I take it from the cited source is the work in which "docere, delectare, et movere" appeared. Cnilep (talk) 00:57, 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, Ged UK 14:00, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Orator (Cicero). This term appears in rhetoric studies, e.g. [1], [2], primarily in the context of Cicero's three functions of a rhetorician. I cannot find in-depth sources to support a standalone article (although there are probably many offline sources about Cicero and rhetoric), but per WP:PRESERVE, we should preserve clearly verifiable information. I agree that Orator (Cicero) looks like a good merge target. --Mark viking (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - does not warrant stand along treatment but I am not sure if it should be to Orator (Cicero) or De Oratore - the source on the page cites both as follows: 82. De optimo genere oratorum, I, 3; Orator, 69; De oratore, II, 28. But the first source, Mark Viking listed above only cites Cicero, de Oratore 2.128 However our article on De Oratore (which is a better article ) does not include the phrase anywhere, so might need some more work ... Depthdiver (talk) 06:19, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venus (Low song)[edit]

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

The last time it was nominated, it was done by a block evader. The song fails WP:NSONGS (No charts, no awards, no covers by another artist(s)) OR WP:GNG. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to indicate why this subject is notable. Bearing in mind that notability is not inherited from a parent article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:05, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not even convinced that the band itself is truly notable, never mind this song (on which I was able to find no discussion by independent, reliable, third party sources to speak of). KDS4444^Talk 22:46, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Skills[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I was unable to find any substantial coverage. Google only turned up sales sites like Amazon.com. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on Google including site:.edu -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:55, 30 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:34, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tameka Norris[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for WP:Artist; article created and maintained by at least three WP:COI/WP:SPA editors - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Tameka Norris. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTIST #4 "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Norris's work has been shown at the Contemporary Arts Museum Houston;[3] in "Gifted and Talented" (curated by Clifford Owens) at Third Streaming Gallery, New York[4] (called "one of the city's most interesting art spaces to have opened its doors in the past couple of years" by Art in America); and in Prospect New Orleans biennial (curated by Dan Cameron).[5] (note: these three sources are WP:GNG material, plus a few other GNG sources in the article ref's). Re the COI maybe we can tag the article and leave notice on user talk pages. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above by Green Cardamom. Squareanimal (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:51, 12 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. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bx3[edit]

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

No sources no coverage non notable tour MarioNovi (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and non notable --MLKLewis (talk) 23:56, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:30, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protik Prokash Banerji[edit]

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

Essentially reads like a resume with no secondary or independent sources included (I didn't find any on a quick search either). The claims for notability are borderline: a couple of university level awards that may not be noteworthy by themsleves (searching for them leads to this article itself); and apparently winning a case for his client, the importance of which is again difficult to assess given the lack of secondary sources. The bio thus fails to meet the WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO standards. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only borderline claims of notability to me is that case, but that appears insufficient to pass GNG.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:57, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:28, 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 Wildstorm Universe. SarahStierch (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'rahn[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of WildStorm 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) 15:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wildstorm Universe. It may also technically fit into List of alien races in DC Comics, but I think that list is supposed to be exclusively for mainstream DC Universe comics, not imprints, like WildStorm. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 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) 01:42, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:26, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Gabutti[edit]

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

I've been mostly coming up empty for reliable, secondary independent written articles about this producer. Sure, he's done work for a lot of artists that have appeared on the official Italian record charts, but, among other citation style, organization and English spelling and grammer issues, most of the sources currently be used here are either unreliable discog pages, youtube videos, or links to other Wikipedia articles, and the reliable sources being used are mostly covering Eiffel 65 in-depth. Just because somebody produced an album for the group that sold 3,000,000 copies doesn't mean the producer is notable, cause remember, Notability is not inherited. I would suggest somebody clean up the page in case sources happen to be found to keep the article, but as of now, I'm suggesting a delete of this article due to notability concerns. 和DITOR E tails 03:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also mention that the creator of this page appears to have only been active in January 2009? Appearently, this is the only article he has edited, save his user page. 和DITOR E tails 01:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, Thank you for having me included in the loop and sorry for the late replay

I concur with most of the problems pointed out by EditorE, and really I feel the article should contain more secondary sources.

The problem I found though, is that most of the secondary sources and interviews are in Italian like the followings: SuperEva guide , ZioMusic professional Magazine , DJMAG Italy

I guess is a quite common problem to face when writing in english about a somebody that is notable in his own country, but just episodically successful in the USA market. There are few interviews in english.

Maybe a solution to this problem might be either to extract the most relevant parts of the interviews and translate them, or as an alternative , to point to a Google translate url and include the page

As EditorE rightly points out most of the USA and International success of this producer comes from the hit single “Blue (Da ba dee) “ and the album “Europop” .

Anyway two facts should be considered:

1)This Producer has constantly performed successfully in the Italian charts before and after the 1999 USA success, as stated by the charts.

Before 1999:

1993 Bliss Team's "People Have The Power" (peak#7) 1994 Da Blitz "Stay With Me" (peak #1) "Let Me Be" (peak #11) 1995 "Movin On" (peak #1), "Take Me Back" (peak #4) 1996 "I Believe" (peak #8)

After 1999:

2002 Gabry Ponte “Geordie” (Peak#15) 2003 Eiffel 65 "Quelli che non hanno età" (Peak#4) "Viaggia insieme a me” (Peak#10) Una Notte e forse mai più (Peak#14) Gabry Ponte “La Danza Delle Streghe (Peak#5, 2003/04) 2008/9 Dari “Sottovuoto Generazionale “(Peak#10) 2010 Dari “In Testa” (Peak#12)

2)“Blue (Da Ba Dee), has been the biggest EDM hit single to come out from Italy , the earliest to hit the USA charts in such a fashion, was nominated to the Grammy in 2001 as “best dance recording” , was used in several Hollywood OST including the new IRON MAN III, was included in the Playstation game RockBand and has been the only english sung tune to ever reach the top of the SIAE (Italian equivalent to ASCAP) highest publishing earnings (year 2000) ,

“Blue (da ba dee)” has been a notable production

The motto “Notability is not inherited” is quite true: too many times people take credits just because they happen to be there at the right time.

But in this case please consider that Massimo Gabutti was the Producer, the Publisher, one of the Authors and the producer of the Video of this notable hit. Same applies for all the song and videos that he produced and made it to chart position before and after “Blue”

Please have a look at this article of THE VERGE The work of this producer (the song, the video) is described as iconic of a period. I guess that might make this producer notable

But again, I feel I failed to point out this facts in the article

It was my first article and even though after that I cooperated or helped other writers making researches or submitting first hand informations for articles they wrote for Wikipedia on the subject of Italian EDM , this one has been the only one I wrote directly, because I had an inner and precise knowledge of the facts and data I was writing about.

If given the chance , and following the suggestion outlined by EditorE, I will try to make the article more linked with facts and more up to the formatting and grammatical wikipedia standards

A final thought: I think that a Student, a Journalist or anybody that has to make a research about Italian EDM and Dance production , would miss an important and notable protagonist if this page will be deleted

That said I wish to thank all Editors for their work and any decision it will be taken I will accept, since I know that it will be for the good of the Wikipedia.

Thank you again for keeping in me the loop and listening to my opinion

Maxipedia (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. that sources be in English is not a requirement. That sources be reliably published, third parties with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy is a requirement. see WP:NONENG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:17, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:16, 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 Optare . SarahStierch (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autobus Classique[edit]

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

Very small article with limited content. Originally part of Optare, so suggest redirect/merge as such. aycliffe^talk 15:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Optare per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Nowhere near enough in-depth coverage to be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:20, 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 no consensus. Feel free to improve the content or renominate for deletion. SarahStierch (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Choo Choo Track & Toy Co[edit]

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

The article does not claim any notability for the topic. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete - This is speedyable under WP:G11 as it exists soley to promote the company. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources added remove a G11 case, but there is still not enough coverage in third-party reliable sources to meet WP:CORP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maple Landmark Woodcraft, Whittle Shortline, and Melissa & Doug are similar manufacturers and online sources for track. Whittle, in particular, has a similar level of content. Choo Choo Track and Toy is one of only a few US manufacturers of wooden track remaining - others are in decline or moved production abroad. Mesko Toys' domestic inventory is near zero^[1] while Whittle continues to face financial challenges^[2]^[3]. Citations and references forthcoming. Author, Acmjournal 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The existiance (or not) of WP:OTHERSTUFF has no bearing on whether or not this article should be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Citations and references addded. Author, Acmjournal 03:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "OUT OF STOCK". Retrieved 16 October 2013.
^ "American Puzzle Company falling on tough times". Retrieved 16 October 2013.
^ "Train Wreck: Ownership Change Causes Stir for Valley Park Railroad Shop". Retrieved 16 October 2013.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:05, 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 My-HiME characters#Fuka Academy staff. Redirected without delete so that a merge can take place if warranted. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yukariko Sanada[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of My-HiME 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) 22:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of My-HiME anime characters. I feel that these are starting to become WP:Pointy nominations given that just yesterday I said that I was going to merge/redirect the characters to the character pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:51, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 17:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Height 611 UFO incident[edit]

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

Other than an obscure book by a UFOlogist named Leonard Stringfield and an episode of a 1990s TV show, I can find no reliable sources that discuss this topic from an independent perspective required to write an article about it. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I realize it's difficult to separate UFOlogist fluff from genuine research in matters such as this, but this particular incident is a very well-known one and you don't seem to even have tried to look at the sources in Russian. When I created this article, I used at least three (unfortunately this was a while ago—when Wikipedia articles were written without sourcing things). I don't remember which sources I used then, but I'll try to dig something up when I have some free time (which, sadly, may be after this nom closes). If someone else wants to help, I'd be grateful. I know of all similar "incidents" this particular one does not deserve to be deleted...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 27, 2013; 00:38 (UTC)

I did see a link to a reprint of a Pravda article that sadly, was full of breathless hyperbole about UFO landings and recovered material that was "not of earthly technologies", but I don't see it as meeting our criteria for a reliable objective source. If you can dig up a translation of some reliable Russian sources, that would be great. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ezhiki. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of reliable sources covering the event. Being covered in books is not sufficent, it depends which kind of books we are talking about... eg, I see the incident is covered in the book The World Internet UFO Directory: A New A-Z Guide to the UFO Phenomenon and Internet Resources by "Lingua Forum", but this book appears to be far from being reliable. Feel free to ping me if RS will be added to the article, and I will change the vote. Cavarrone 05:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are a few more sources found after a (very) perfunctory search: [6], [7], [8], [9] (I also have somewhere in storage a copy of the report mentioned in the first article, which, I realize, is a primary source and which, I realize, I first need to dig out to be able to use it properly). I really don't have time now to search more thoroughly, so if this article gets deleted, I kindly request the closing administrator to move it to my userspace so I could return to it some time in the future. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 28, 2013; 16:54 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced by the sources presented. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:36, 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 Whatever the hell User:Dsimics said, yeah, that's the consensus, do that.. v/r - T P 17:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Linux[edit]

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

Delete for being WP:POVFORK. Title and lead section of the article has no connection to its contents which is a bad fork of desktop environment, shell (computing) and WIMP (computing) articles and certainly not about Linux. The core of the article is an unreferenced, unexplained questionable WP:OR sentence in the lead: "The term Desktop Linux refers to all the software components that build a graphical user interface, that is designed for usage with a desktop computer and also devices, that offer identical human interface devices, such as Laptops." First, there is no mention of "Linux" in the underlined section. Second, graphical user interface is an aspect of computer software; it does not consist of software itself. Edits by some users like User:ScotXW has shown that they thought that perhaps "build" means "design and develop" and therefore this article is about software development. (I can't possibly say they are wrong because this jumble of text that asserts the title of "article" itself has no idea.) Third, the reset of the article is barely connected to this core sentence. It is from a flawed point of view that no other operating system other than Linux superfamily exist.

I was tempted to nominate this article for deletion under CSD:G1 but obviously the word "Linux" in the title is bound to attract Linux fans to say "keep" indiscriminately. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Linux on the desktop is outsourced of the article Linux range of use (the equivalent being de:Linux-Einsatzbereiche), which is outsourced of the article Linux.

1. There is no one Linux operating system, but there is an abundance of Linux kernel-based operating systems. The only software component that all of this OSes have in common is the Linux kernel. The rest of the operating system (even the C standard library!) can differ.

2. The difference of the OSes are either due to the hardware type (embedded computer with only 32MiB of main memory, MMU-less CPU, supercomputer, exotic instruction set, etc.) or due to the Human interface device, i.e. a touchscreen-based UI differs from one for pointing device and computer keyboard.

There articles were IMO inaptly named, and partly miserably written. I just begun changing this, and BAM, useless appears with "critique wannabe". How come, miserably written articles don't bother you? Are you a Linux-hater? Did Linux hurt your feelings?

Are there any technical questions or some comprehension problems regarding the scope or content of the mentioned article?

I, on the other hand, am very tempted to delve into the Chaos Communication Congress-Tschunk-matter. Was that another glorious session? Did the Brain strike again against the enemies of the Wikipedia? ScotXW (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current Desktop Linux article is not that great, but it's much better as-is than not having it. In other words, there's definitely a lot more room for further improvements, but there's no reasonable backing to the proposal for deleting the article. It's not that great for sure, and there are many more things that should be also described or at least mentioned (like udev or dbus) for a much better big picture — but once again, it's still good as-is. Why should we delete it, when it can be improved? Should a headache be cured with some painkillers, or with an axe? :) -- Dsimic (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that User:Codename Lisa is a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft... Are there any further doubts regarding as of why he/she isn't so fond of a Linux-related article? And particularly the article clashing with the Microsoft's holy grail — the desktop. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Did you know that Codename Lisa is the codename for version 12 of Linux Mint? Obviously not. I am Linux and this article is not related to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I'm apologizing for that, wasn't aware of the relation to Linux Mint, as I'm not using that distribution. Why is then your Wikipedia user page stating you're a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft? Those two aren't mixing that well. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. WikiProject Microsoft is about Wikipedia and its neutrality pillars, not Microsoft. They want someone who can write from a neutral point of view, not a Microsoft fanboy. I managed to make thing more neutral. For instance the Start menu article now acknowledges that the menu is not just a thing of Windows but is also present on other operating systems. Or, we managed to prevent exaggeration of the importance of Windows 8.1. But I digress. This article does something like what Microsoft does: Privatization of contents. It shouldn't be so: Its contents should be merged with other articles like Shell (computing), desktop environment, WIMP (computing), etc. Neutrally mentioning design, development and implementation tenets, IMHO, is the way to go. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very good explanation, it all makes sense! I totally agree that neutrality is the key everywhere, and especially here on Wikipedia. If we don't stay neutral, then the whole thing turns into a huge blog, what's not the point. For example, I'll always say that KDE 4 was a miss and is a total disaster (too complex, pushed out prematurely and thus very buggy), as well as Windows 8 is a disaster (unjustified / not needed paradigm shift).

I'll have another look into the Linux desktop environments article, and come back with a detailed proposal. I've already renamed the article, as that way it has a potential to present its own matter, and that's what it should've contained from the beginning and from a neutral point of view — if you agree.

-- Dsimic (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now that the article has been renamed, I'd like to ask about the scope of Linux desktop environments. What is this article going to be about, and how is it going to avoid extensive overlap with Desktop environment? Also, if it's going to be about KDE, GNOME, etc, then it's going to run into severe problems, because those are not Linux exclusive. They're also used in other operating systems, such as BSD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, this article looks like a bigger mess the more I'm looking into it. :( So far, the only reasonable thing appropriate for Linux desktop environments would be some kind of a "road signs cluster" article, providing a big picture overview — with links to KDE, GNOME etc. articles. It's already there within the article, but it requires some serious trimming.

But then again, do we need such an article? Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I went through the same thought process. Linux is fairly standardized (POSIX, X11, Mesa 3D, OpenGL, etc), so there isn't all that much unique to Linux that we need to cover. It's not like Apple or Microsoft, where there's all sorts of proprietary technologies that need their own articles. We've already got History of Linux, Criticism of desktop Linux, and Desktop environment. We could probably fit everything else under Linux. I thought about volunteering to rewrite this article, but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like a pointless effort. One main article to tie up all these concepts might work, but it would probably have to be less specific than this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we're having duplicated content around, what's quite confusing to anyone reading the articles, and at the same time tough for later maintenance and updating.

In a few words, how about doing something like this:

heading section content from the Linux desktop environments article becomes incorporated into the Linux#Desktop section (better said, the bits not already covered in that section of the Linux article)
we already have various desktop screenshots in the same Linux#Desktop section, so those might be moved into the Desktop environment article as well
Desktop environment article becomes the "Main article" for Linux#Desktop section.

Linux desktop environments article would be really an overkill in that scenario.

Sounds like a plan? Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

This looks a good plan. We can even negotiate details live. Do you want me to withdraw this nomination or do you prefer to leave it on for a while to attract more consensus?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you agree, I'd leave the nomination tag so more people can see it and possibly contribute more ideas and comments. After we go through a few more days discussing and ironing it out, I can go ahead (or somebody else) and move the stuff as described above — or according to our final plan, of course.

Also, nomination tag should stay as the Linux desktop environments article is going to be deleted in the end, after its content is moved around — if everyone agrees.

As always, comments are more than welcome. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds good to me, but I'm not even sure we need a "main article" for Linux#Desktop. That's a debate for Talk:Linux, though. Some of these concepts could probably be expanded on in the appropriate articles, such as Operating system and Desktop environment, as long as it doesn't become too technical or complex. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Well, it can be at least a "See also" article. :)

Also, please have a look at Talk:Linux#Article structure over multiple articles, where ScotXW is proposing quite a redo of the Linux-related articles structure. That's something interesting and worth discussing over it.

-- Dsimic (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please no more "... it is Unix-like"-sentences, this term is totally useless, to put it kindly. In the article Linux on the desktop I want to learn something about the middleware, i.e. all the stuff between the Linux kernel and the GNOME Shell. How does it work? Why would I want such an operating system on my home desktop, why wouldn't I? Why would I want it in the office? Should we have rather donated money to Mesa 3D then to Mozilla? If there is an extra article named Controversy over GNOME 3, how can there not be an article Linux on the desktop? ScotXW (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's a good point, but can't we have that described within the Desktop environment article? From another perspective, what should we eventually do with the Desktop environment article?

Also, if we go with Linux on the desktop article, then a lot of "it's GNU on the desktop, not Linux" people are going to hit us hard. And they're quite right, as it's the KDE, GNOME or whatever on the desktop, and you can also have that with FreeBSD or even through Cygwin or natively on Windows.

Just as a note, only the technically inclined people care about such stuff. I do care about what's under the hood, but nobody is going to choose Linux just because of its shiny exhaust manifolds, so to speak. :) Such "office workers" people just want to click and print a document, they don't care or know even what ink-jet technology in fact is — for example.

Please don't get me wrong... I do want and love tech stuff all around, but we should keep in mind that we're going to lure nobody into Linux just because we expose all of the gears.

Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides agreeing with what Dsimic has said above, I would point out that articles on Wikipedia must satisfy notability and verifiability issues; furthermore, advocacy and personal opinion are forbidden. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I know it's a bit of pain to have everything backed with references, even when you know first hand something is true, but that's what an encyclopedia in fact is — a large sum of the facts extracted out of good references. We're summing up research work and proven facts here, instead of writing essays. -- Dsimic (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking, how are we standing from the point of reaching a consensus? Please comment. -- Dsimic (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pity the admin who has to make sense of this long discussion. Here's what I favor:

Merge the useful, sourced elements of this article into Desktop environment and Linux, and redirect to Linux#Desktop. I may assist in this if someone leaves a note on my talk page. Note: if content is to be merged, we shouldn't delete this article, per WP:MAD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 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, BusterD (talk) 04:34, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a few words, this is what's been pretty much concluded so far, as a brief summary of the discussion above:

content from the Linux desktop environments article (primarily its lead section) becomes incorporated / merged into the Linux#Desktop section (better said, the few bits not already covered in that section of the Linux article);
there are already various desktop screenshots in Linux#Desktop section, so those might be moved into the Desktop environment article as well;
Desktop environment article becomes a "See also" article for the Linux#Desktop section;
Linux desktop environments article would become an overkill in this scenario, so the final step would be turning it into a redirect to the Desktop environment article.

Sounds like a plan? Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about a nice course of action. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree to that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge'—Now this is how consensus should be reached. Great job to Dsimic and Codename Lisa to reach this. I think your proposal makes a lot of sense, and I applaud you for making the effort to implement it. I'm mainly just !voting so that the closing admin can easily see what's going on here; you guys have done all the heavy lifting. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! We're just trying to be productive members of the Wikipedia community. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 18:16, 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 no-consensus. WP:NAC closure by Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysław Frasunek[edit]

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

Sources present don't seem to me sufficient to warrant this biography passing WP:BIO. Only The Register is mainstream, and discovering few code vulnerabilities, with one mention in a mainstream publication, does not seem to cut it. The pl wiki cited interview in Polish Computerworld doesn't seem sufficient; it's not about him, it's about his views on computer security - being interviewed does not make one notable; this would require showing that his person is discussed in independent sources, which is not the case. And his achievements are not widely reported; IMHO he fails WP:ANYBIO 1 and 2, and all WP:CREATIVE points, as well. The cited, mostly niche sources, plus The Registrar, do not convince me that he made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". CC Previous AfD participants: User:Boleyn, User:Unscintillating, User:DGG. PS. Also cc User:Tqbf who made extensive comments on this article's lack of notability's at the article's talk page. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

question Piotrus , could you explain for us the history of the article on the Polish WP--there appears to have been an earlier AfD there that deleted the article--was it challenged again after being recreate, or what? My argument for keeping at the prior AfD was based on my reluctance to delete an article on a Polish topic accepted in that country's WP, but perhaps there's more to be said about that. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First, in my experience pl wiki notability criteria are much more relaxed, and existing rules are not applied consistently. Anyway, this article was deleted in August 2006 from pl wiki; recreated by original author the following months, and nobody seems to have noticed that. Perhaps it lookes notable for pl wiki, hard to say as the dominant rule there for keeping articles seems to be "because I feel it's notable". Anyway, I did nominate it for deletion there recently ([10]) but nobody else cared to comment and it was closed as keep, despite the fact that nobody cared to object to my arguments (about lack of notability and improper recreation). I complained to the closing admin there and was ignored ([11]). So, let me caution you against the argument that existence of article or positive keep discussion on pl wiki is meaningful. A lot of crap is kept there because "people felt like it". I have also seen snow keeps deleted because an admin decided to enforce a guideline... it's chaos over there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - recreated by original author the following months - looking at the history of this article in .pl, this statement is incorrect Jagger11 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm, I am not sure who was the original author, so perhaps I am wrong about it. It is clear from pl:Wikipedia:SDU/Przemysław Frasunek-1 that the article was deleted on August 2006 and from [12] that it was recreated in September that year by you (or at least someone using the username Jagger on pl wiki; btw, you should use a single account for all projects). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete , though open to a possible keep, because this is the sort of occupation which tends not to use normal sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Frasunek is mentioned as an co-author of the first exploitation technique in the Uncontrolled format string article, and this fact can be confirmed in several sources [13], [14]. Also, his research is cited in books: [15], as well as in papers [16] available from such domains as www.cs.ucsb.edu (UC Santa Barbara), www.usenix.org (Usenix), diuf.unifr.ch (Uni of Fribourg), www.cs.umd.edu (U. of Maryland) Jagger11 (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being cited a few times is not enough; if it was I'd be notable, too :> I cannot open the first book to verify what is written it it; and the pdf of a presentation, while I'll grant it is reliable (published on .edu), is not an indication of mainstream coverage, as required by GNG, and joins all the other, niche sources in being, well, niche, and not helping with GNG/BIO notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 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) 00:31, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Gazette (website)[edit]

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

I created this article to tidy up after finding the website's logo and URL added to the article for the defunct newspaper of the same title, but there now seems to be no indication that the website is actually notable. It was dePRODded, without comment, by an IP editor in their first edit. PamD 12:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• manhistorian I would suggest keeping the article, the vast majority of people who view the MG article are in fact looking because of the online Publication. —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A sole Manchester Evening News hit here (in the article at the moment) seems to be the extent of reliable source coverage. Other hits seem to suggest the site is some sort of front for the English Defence League. It's irrelevant how many clicks an article gets, a search for sources brings up the 19th century version. I'll just go and ping Eric Corbett, our local Mancunian historian, to see if he knows more. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as failing WP:GNG. It is significant that all but one of the news hits relate to its own website. The lack of coverage, and lack of attribution, by other reliable sources strongly points to non-notability. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:54, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 99 Cent Family[edit]

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

Non-notable play lacking Ghits and Gnews of substance. reddogsix (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no third-party reliable sources given for any hint of notability. N2e (talk) 19:07, 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) 00:27, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 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 Home School Valedictorian. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Collapse (song)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD should be cancelled as the reached No. 33 on the Alternative Songs chart at http://www.billboard.com/artist/278041/adelitas-way/chart?f=377. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all that can be found about the song, it can be redirected to Home School Valedictorian. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure more can be found, not that it will be found. However that is enough to merit an article based on WP:SONGS, even though the position on a minor chart isn't particularly strong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NSONGS doesn't say that. It says that charting is a factor that may make a song notable, bu a standalone article should exist only if the song is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" and "there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Neither of those apply here. These more important parts of the notability requirements alway seem to be overlooked. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I have been misreading that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 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) 00:11, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 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. Secret ^account 02:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masta Mic[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person, apparently a beatbox musician. Don't see how this meets WP:ARTIST. Also note that article creator Burmich is a single-purpose account and likely in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 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 redirect to Sustainable tourism. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible Tourism[edit]

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

Used to be a redirect to Sustainable tourism, but now it is some marketing jibberish created by Rtsouthafrica (do I smell conflict of interest?). I'd say delete and re-create the redirect. bender235 (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect Is there a reason we need to delete first? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to make it "official" by Wikipedia rules. I don't think you can just blank the page and insert a redirect. --bender235 (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a permissible though little known policy, see Wikipedia:Deletion by redirection and WP:ATD-R. If someone objects go to AfD. But having an AfD creates consensus which doesn't hurt down the road if someone tries to undo the redirect. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect .. as noted above the sources don't establish a concept separate from sustainable tourism. Different name for the same thing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:05, 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. Feel free to improve the content or renominate for deletion. SarahStierch (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiwana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It is certainly used as a last name and there were various military regiments that used it also. However, there are no reliable sources that refer to the Tiwana as a clan. This is also impossible to redirect in a neutral manner because there are so many possible targets - see this. I doubt that turning this into a disambig page would be meaningful because the Tiwana element of those targets seems often to be of tangential relevance. Sitush (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Tiwana (surname) and dabify ~~, adding hatnotes to the city and village.~~ Ansh6 6 6 01:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that discuss it as a surname? I've seen none and discussion in multiple sources is the whole point of GNG. I presume that you share the opinion that the present article cannot exist in its clan form? - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DABs don't need sources, and your linked search turned up mostly articles of people with surname of Tiwana, plus a city, a village, and an administrative district of some kind. Ansh6 6 6 03:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean turn it into a dab page, in which case we would not need hatnotes for any placenames. The problem is, there are no places that are usually called "Tiwana" - this is an exercise in inclusionism that solves no problem. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that I think of it the "surname" part doesn't make too much sense, there are what 5 people and 3 places? I mean, yeah, I know it borders on completely useless, but the option does exist. I'll leave it up to some higher power to decide. Ansh6 6 6 19:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are this, or this of any use? --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your second source is from the Raj period. Being the Japanese version of GBooks, I can't determine the author but it looks like it may be H. A. Rose, who has repeatedly been deemed unreliable. Your first is B S Nijjar, who has also been rubbished on several occasions and is cited by others even less often than Rose - not an academic publisher, unattributed copy/pastes from Raj works etc. (Admittedly, many of the citations for Rose relate to demonstrations of the warped Raj mindset rather than as some sort of oracle). Many of our stub articles relating to Indian communities have indeed originated from Raj studies: people such as LRBurdak (talk · contribs) and Waltham-somebody (sorry) who went through a phase of basically copying content from those books when creating new stub articles. IIRC, there is a massive copyright investigation going on at WP:CCI in relation to LRBurdak. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm.. 2nd author is Ram Sarup Joon. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, I think that we had an article about Joon here at one point and it was deleted. But I can't spot where that happened! He was certainly discussed here. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 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) 04:26, 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) 20:59, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Te Regalo el Mar[edit]

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

fails WP:NSONGS. Doesn't appear to be a single either. Erick (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. — Diva Knockouts 23:02, 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) 04:32, 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, KTC (talk) 20:57, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

François Rousseau (engineer)[edit]

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

Unsourced, and I'm unable to find anything that shows sufficient notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject to change if a reliable source reference is added. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ditto per davidwr. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment There seem to be a number of GBooks references to the subject being an early proponent of the James Bay Project, and possibly being partly responsible for Robert Bourassa's interest in it. Unfortunately, most of them are only visible in snippets, so it is difficult to say whether any of these are in depth or whether they are all casual mentions. PWilkinson (talk) 23:59, 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, KTC (talk) 20:55, 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 Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Kennedy (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable per WP:POLITICIAN. School board trustee is not an office that qualifies a person for a Wikipedia article on its own, but rather the only school board trustees who qualify for articles are those who have also previously or subsequently held a more notable office — such as a mayoralty or a provincial, state or federal legislative seat. In addition, except for a single minor WP:BLP1E burst of news coverage for a single controversial comment, all of the sources actually being cited here are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES which fail to demonstrate that she's in any significant way more notable than most other school trustees who don't have articles. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Agree trustee position not important enough to qualify for WP:POLITICIAN. Not much other coverage. Provincial also-ran status doesn't qualify her either but she is already mentioned on the candidate page so I recommend redirect. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:02, 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) 20:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per EncyclopediaUpdaticus, past common outcomes, and as an easy and cheap way out. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would the fact that she's also the Former Chair of the Board (largest Catholic School Board in Canada), and running for Provincial Office again this Spring change anything? (talk) 19:55, 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Azar[edit]

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

I could find many mentions of Azar, but couldn't find anything to confirm she is WP:Notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What has changed since the first AfD, last year, which closed as keep based on evidence that she passed WP:PROF based on her heavily cited work? --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed the speedy deletion tag that was previously in place atop this discussion (diff); AfD discussion threads are typically not deleted. User:Boleyn, are you looking to withdraw this nomination? Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried to close it two seconds after creating it with a speedy deletion tag - this was set up in error. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 03:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SolusOS[edit]

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

Given that the project is dead, there's little point in keeping this around. PS: no Computer Software category? Gaba ^(talk) 19:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a good idea... GianoM (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dead projects of course could be notable, but this one only seemed to exist for about a year and a half, so never had time to get notable. W Nowicki (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:GNG not met. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Coverage in two reliable sources: OStatic and PCWorld, both cited in the article. Yes, it's primary-source heavy, but the coverage in independent sources meets the requirements of the WP:GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:11, 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. v/r - T P 03:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington Patterson[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights so fails WP:NMMA. No evidence that he meets the kickboxing criteria at WP:KICK since the IKF is not listed as a major organization.Mdtemp (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taken from WP:KICK : A kickboxing athlete is presumed notable if they've fought for a world title of a major organization (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO, etc. Barrington had fought for WAKO which is a major organisation for the world title within the tournament and was given Bronze in 1996 (W.A.K.O. European Championships 1996) I believe he meets the criteria with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.158.217 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Third place European does not make a fight for the world championship. He may be notable for other things but not his fight record.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amateur kickboxer is not notable, he was bronze at amateur championship.Master Sun Tzu (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails as a MMArtist and as kickboxer. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability standards for both MMA and kickboxing (WP:NMMA and WP:KICK). Third place at European amateur championships does not show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:28, 12 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. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Łukasz Jurkowski[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Also fails WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete retired MMA fighter with no significant coverage or top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:25, 12 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. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Christensen[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Article lacks significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mats Lidström[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP, WP:OR The Banner talk 18:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note on the talk page of the article. As explained there the entire content of this article is largely factual (rather than opinion) and verifiable by visiting Mats profile at the Royal Academy of Music website plus his own personal and publishing websites (all linked at the foot of the article). Most of the information was gather directly from Mats via a copy of his CV, discussion and visiting his website and he requested that I help him by updating the information on the page as the previous version of the page was seriously out of date (have originally been written by his nephew a long time ago). Further the original page had no citations to justify the content. If there are issues I need to resolve can you please tell me how to do that - the docs and policies on wikipedia are very long and tedious and the language pretty impenetrable. JCarolHaynes (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found. Even if they can, this BLP is a style disaster and should be blown up. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Good morning! The matter is really very uncomplicated: I work as professor at the Royal Academy of Music in London and would not wish to have a profile on me which is grossly out of date. Nor would Wikipedia. The page was set up by my nephew several years ago, so now it's time to update it. YOu've seen the text, since my friend Carol Haynes has tried to put it up here several times. ALl it is, is an updated CV on me as a cellist/composer. Many thanks. MATS

A CV is not an encyclopaedic article, beside that it is a breach of copyrights. The Banner talk 11:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind rewriting some of it if you feel it is not in an approved style. I am not sure what you want by way of references - the information is documented and the Royal Academy of Music website - which is linked in the article. What else can I reference. For example, there is no published information on which orchestras Mats has worked with other than the RAM website - and short of writing to every orchestra and asking them to write a publicly accesssible statement that Mats has worked with them I can't see how that basic information about a career is in anyway capable of confirmation by citation? JCarolHaynes (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this article is almost a copy from Royal Acedemy of Music. Big parts are plain copied, making it a violation of copyrights, sorry. Evidence: Dulicate Detector. The Banner talk 11:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a violation of copyright if it is used with permission.JCarolHaynes (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you written proof of that? The Banner talk 16:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a problem - how can I submit evidence? JCarolHaynes (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But even with that, you have to rewrite is as the style is not very well for an encyclopaedia. You can contact Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team for the exact procedure. I have never had that problem, so I don't know how it works but those lads and lasses are there to help you. Good luck. The Banner talk 20:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I don't mind redrafting it to be more encyclopaedic. How do I submit authorisation for the use of content from the Royal Academy website? JCarolHaynes (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail them (see left hand menu) and they will talk you through the procedure. The Banner talk 22:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK sent email requesting info about providing permission and advice about further citations required. JCarolHaynes (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)— JCarolHaynes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep – I added 2 references; they were not difficult to find and can probably be used as source for some more statements in the article. And it shouldn't be too difficult to find more. A WP:TROUT for disregarding WP:BEFORE might be in order. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If the content is true, I would have thought that he was notable as a soloist. There is a possible COPY-VIO issue. However, if we have the subject of the BIO involved in this discussion, it should be possible to resolve that problem by writing something that is not a copy. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Harris (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Starting one college basketball game is also not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was clearly created WP:TOOSOON. He has no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA and assuming he will get them is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. Being ranked as the number 11 prospect is not the same as being ranked the number 11 fighter.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:22, 12 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. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Rinaldi (fighter)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP with no sources about an MMA fighter with no top tier fights, so he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Into the Rift (talk) 23:36, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baga Agaev[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights. The main source is his club and none of the sources appear independent. A second place at a junior tournament does not show notability in judo. Fails WP:NMMA, WP:GNG, and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Into the Rift (talk) 23:40, 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. v/r - T P 03:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Pistono[edit]

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

No significant awards, and his book on a robot-induced economic collapse is self-published -- which, as one would expect, has only 8 library holdings. (His SF book I can find no traces of anywhere) Other than that, the article is a list of speeches he gave. The three photos of him giving talks adds to the atmosphere of promotionalism (I note that the description of the first refers to him as "world famous bestselling author Federico Pistono") . I hesitated on this one,because it looked like a good many references, but they're mere links to his talks or announcements of them. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:AUTHOR, the relevant notability guideline for creative professionals. While perhaps not an {{autobiography}}, the article was written by an apparently admitted paid editor and smacks of promotionalism, another reason for deletion: wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 21:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The books are not notable in terms of legitimate book reviews in independent sources, which is not surprising for a self published book (agents and publishers normally do that). Maybe a couple [17][18] The sources in the article are mostly by Pistono (including interviews) or don't mention Pistono. There's some borderline and Italian sources, if someone really wanted to they could argue Keep but those sources wouldn't support the article as written. The article is weighed down by PRIMARY and not enough reliable independent significant secondary to justify AUTHOR or GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I think the page might be worth some re-editing or the removal of non-reliable sources.
- First and foremost: I am a personal friend of Federico Pistono; my view will certainly be biased, although I will try to be as objective as I can. As this is a discussion and not a page edit, I think my contribution should fall under the guidelines of Conflict_of_interest#Biased_editing. Also, I am aware of the Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Sockpuppeting_is_not_tolerated Socketpupping issue, hence my forewarning. Please help me understand what I might be doing wrong.
- Some of the concerns listed above are valid, but I believe there is room for improvement on the page, rather than deletion. The Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Summary_deletion.2C_creation_prevention.2C_and_courtesy_blanking mentions that:
  Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion.
- There is one significant government award, albeit its importance might be of limited significance to those coming from a non-Italian background: it is listed as note 34: [19] in the page. Others include the scholarship for the Singularity graduate university, the journalism contest on Climate Change.
- Many of the sources are not just links to his speeches, but contain also a critical review or are part of larger discussions such as [note 13|Federico_Pistono#cite_note-13], part of the Wall Street Journal Digital Network (although I am not sure if a video could be taken as a reliable source). Others could be argued. My point is that there is room for debate, not to discuss the validity of certain sources. Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with the guidelines to offer a good review of them.
- Regarding self-promotion: I do not think any of the points referenced on WP:PROMOTION apply here, although the article does sound like it. I believe this coud could be an excellent point for some editing. I could not find the bits added by the professionally paid editor; I asked Pistono and he confirmed he was not involved with such user. Nothing one could quote as a "reliable source independent from the person" but at the same time worth more investigation, rather than deletion.
- On the negative side, I agree - the article does not qualify for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. The SF book is nowhere to be found. And all the simple links to the talks should be listed on a personal page or a blog.
- On the dubious side, many sources are not in English. I do not know if this would be a good case for this page to be kept only in other languages; however, doing so would make this page's case against deletion even weaker, as there would be even less sources in that specific language.

I hope to have contributed to the debate. Apologies for my unfamiliarity with the entire process. Sincerely, Lorenzo g (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Lorenzo g (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - tucoxn\^talk 03:48, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Wyatt[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Having fought notable fighters does not show notability since WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG with only routine coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:17, 12 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. v/r - T P 03:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bev Gray[edit]

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

Non notable ceo of a non-notable trade show company. The article is almost entirely about her family and education, because there's nothing substantial to say about her career, except that she once spoke at a political convention. there are, as usual, some trivial awards. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scattered mentions without any significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 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 delete. v/r - T P 03:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Perez (fighter)[edit]

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

Retired MMA fighter who had a total of 4 fights, none with a top tier organization. One kickboxing bout doesn't make him notable either. Fails WP:NMMA, WP:KICK, and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails as a MMArtist and as kickboxer. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show he meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 01:34, 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. Thanks for adding sources. v/r - T P 03:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Razak Khan[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced BLP that says nothing about the actor. The Banner talk 19:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May not meet WP:NACTOR, article is unsourced with just one source showing movies he was in. ///EuroCarGT 00:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you prove This article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR? There are three requirement to meet Nactor Let me enlighten you

1- Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2- Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3- Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

I think the number of IMDB and wikipedia article he is listed in as an actor make him pass 1st and 3rd ones. What are your thoughts? @Stemoc: --Foodie (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He passes all 3, lets not forget the cult following he got for his characters "Muna Mobile" and "Ninja Chacha"..--Stemoc (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found more References about Razak Khan Here. I just have no idea why without doing enough research about a subject Wiki guys mark it for deletion. --Foodie (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Isn't the inclusion criteria based on Notability? This man has acted in over 150 films (some not listed on wikipedia and IMDb) and is as notable as the likes of Shakti Kapoor, Johnny Lever, Vijay Raaz and Sadashiv Amrapurkar and i can't believe it took them so many years to make his article albeit a stub...One of the most recognisable support actors in Bollywood..needs a bit of expansion but i have seen worse article on actors on wikipedia...This RfD needs to be added to Indian cinema--Stemoc (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:BLP. Articles about living people need to be properly sourced. That is not the case here. The Banner talk 16:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you'd better start searching, there are atleast a 100+ more like these..IMDb is a good enough source--Stemoc (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Stemoc here, i think The Banner you marked this article for deletion without even having to search him on Google or may be you just do not know how to search an actor on Google. See This and i am sure you will be surprised to see 100+ movies he worked in. You could have improved this article yourself instead of wasting time on requesting a delete. --Foodie (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - In fact you created the article without even reading the requirements of WP:BLP. Articles about living about living people need sources in the article. The Banner talk 02:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I agree with Stemoc that there are 100s articles on wiki single sourced from IMDB, which is highly unreliable source as you can create any profile on IMDB. Someone needs to take a broom and clean all the out of wiki.--Nlfestival (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I contribute to IMDb and I find adding stuff there is much harder than adding stuff here..there are 5 other links provided on his page so notability isn't the problem here, not to mention, if you google him with his "preferred name" which is "Razzak Khan", you will get over 180,000 hits. He is a well-established actor..I could add one or 2 more lines to make it look like a stub but what would that achieve? Banner's reason for deletion is laughable as i can list atleast 10 more pages here with the same if not less information that has been allowed on wikipedia....I hate Deletionists and thats why i'm supporting to keep this article. If you nominate this article for that reason, you better start making a list and nominate all those 100+ articles for the same reason...--Stemoc (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:BLP. Articles about living about living people need sources in the article. The Banner talk 02:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Article Does Pass WP:NACTOR. Out of 150 Movies he worked in, many of them has IMDB and Wikipedia Articles;almost all of them saying Razzak Khan was a part of movie. --Foodie (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is the lack of proper sourcing. The only reference merely tells you that the actor exists. The Banner talk 18:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Will you count some of these as a reference? --Foodie (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Depends. The source should comply with the rules for reliable sources and add something about the actor. Sources in English are preferred, but a good, reliable source in another language or script are also okay. The Banner talk 12:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: User:The Banner's incompetency in understanding worth of Indian actors is amazing. I would suggest them to use their time elsewhere. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javed Jaffrey was also one such worthless attempt. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 01:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rudeness and poor ability to read the reason of the AfD is also amazing. So stop your PAs and start adding sources. Alternatively, you run a massive risk to loose the article altogether due to a violation of WP:BLP. The Banner talk 02:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Banner, it would be better if you avoided nominating any "India" related entertainers before people become prejudicial and 'vote stuff' keep on your future nominations... and yes your nom reason is valid but the references provided in the article in terms of external links proves notability. Wikipedia will not delete articles because they are written poorly, they will only delete them if they fail bio. I will add a few lines later to the article but honestly I don't see how that would help and again, there are 100's of articles just like this lacking relevant information. You might wanna concentrate on that..Wikipedia has mainly been about quantity than quality..It hasn't changed much the 7 years i have been here....Maybe next time before nominating, post a message on the creators page to "expand" the article instead of nominating it for deletion, or use of this template on the articles next time "{{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources|date=October 2013}}{{one source|date=October 2013}}{{BLP primary sources|date=October 2013|blp=yes}}}}" --Stemoc (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't care at all where an actor is coming from. When I see an unsourced BLP, I will nominate for deletion according to WP:BLP. That you guys see prejudice in it, in entirely your problem. The Banner talk 10:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- UUUUHHHH!!! Am scared!!! Please forgive me. Don't kill me.
  AFDs are not from cleanup. If at all you are really concerned about the quality, DIY. If you aren't competent enough to do it, ask help at WikiProjects. Raising such silly AFDs is, silly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just read WP:BLP, dude. Entirely within the guideline what I did. And when you really care about the Indian film industry: find that vandal that is vandalising so many articles. With all my "prejudice", as you guys call it, I have repaired a few hundred articles about actors, actresses, movies and directors. Where where you guys then? The Banner talk 10:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:WALL. You are directing me to a huge WP:BLP page and not explicitly mentioning any clause on it. That's WP:WALL, dude. And what vandal? And i was probably fighting some systemic bias then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:14, 30 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 // 17:59, 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 Speedy delete. (CSD G11) As DGG says, there may be an article to write on this topic, but this isn't it. It is unadulterated promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange 2.0[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mihovil Lovrić[edit]

The result of this discussion was speedy delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moor (film)[edit]

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

As an upcoming minor film, the article is ~~completely unreferenced~~ poorly referenced, and doesn't meet WP:MOVIE and WP:CRYSTAL. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movie is referenced now with Tribune Pakistan article, have a look. I Am ready to add every possible official external link .UBS (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It's well referenced now and meets WP Movie criteria.UBS (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still needs more sources - there are only 2 and both are from the Tribune. Coverage in multiple sources is required, and a newspaper only counts as a single source even if there is more than one story. If there are similar articles in other newspapers, that would suffice. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added film budget with reference.UBS (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References are not just 2, and the number of references doesn't matter as movie is to be released far in 2014 so the sources are less BUT it's been proved that movie will release in 2014.UBS (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this discussion if you do not have doubt left. UBS (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple reliable sources that discuss this movie making it a notable subject per WP:MOVIE, and thus WP:CRYSTAL is moot. -- SMS ^Talk 16:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In its current state the article does now seem to meet WP:NOTFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:19, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We CAN Control Corrosion in India[edit]

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

Personal thesis, original research. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article advocates fighting corrosion in India. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to stand on and advocate one's ideas, however sensible they are. Adds little to Corrosion, and could give rise to a couple of hundred more articles from We CAN Control Corrosion in Abkhazia, through We CAN Control Corrosion in Zimbabwe, let alone articles advocating rust fighting in states, counties and cities. Edison (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrosion is a global problem. Problem wise it is not restricted to only one place (state or country or continent). Control wise the efforts are not uniform. Corrosion problems observed in one geography may not match with observations from other geography due to variations in the operation and maintenance practices. There are many methods available for corrosion control. Availability of resources such as science and technology expertise, research programs, investment capabilities, standards, environmental regulations and legislation for controlling corrosion varies from country to country. Since corrosion process is associated with environment and life cycle of equipment, geography specific control efforts have to be necessarily carried out to find the answers for material degradation issues and pass on the experience to other geographies for strengthening their efforts on controlling corrosion Mvalliappan (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps even speedy-able. No evidence that the "internet based networking grouplaunched on LinkedIn" is notable, and the article is completely promotional, serving essentially as the group's homepage. Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:39, 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. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alen Guć[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. Malaysian Premier league is not FPL, nor are any of the others he has played in. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Alen Guc has played in Malaysian Premier league for Kedah FA. He has played 17 matches and scoring 14 goals before being released in the end of the season. User:TorresChelsea96 —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MPL is not confirmed as fully pro (see WP:FPL), meaning that playin in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence he meets GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:18, 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 non-consensus, without any objection to renominee. WP:NAC Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Ziegler[edit]

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

My redirect was undone, claiming that simply being a main character in The West Wing is automatically notable. This is not true. This character fails WP:GNG. Merely appearing in a notable work isn't enough per WP:NOTINHERITED. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The West Wing characters as per WP:GNG and Pokemon test. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News search shows multiple sources, some paywalled, that appear to discuss the character in independet, non-trivial fashion. Agreed that the current sources are all primary, but I see no indication that a decent search per WP:BEFORE was conducted. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed all those hits, too. However, they looked to be discussing the actor, not the character. Do you have any specific links that discuss the character? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - long running major network shows commonly have separate pages for their main characters - Bobby Ewing from Dallas, William Riker from Star Trek TNG, Doug Ross from ER, and on and on. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I note, for one, that the Ross article has a reception section that establishes notability. The others, I'm not really sure about. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:58, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocomb[edit]

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

Delete when searching [[20]] I am not able to find widespread coverage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Delete when searching" is not a valid (or even comprehensible) deletion criterion. Searching does indeed find several mentions of the conference, under both the abbreviated and full names. At worst, there should be a merge with European Prize in Combinatorics. -- 101.119.15.104 (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a perfectly valid reason for a deletion rationale when you read the rest of the reason. I said that "Delete when searching [[21]] I am not able to find widespread coverage" (thus saying that it fails notability guidelines) I put a link to indicate and show the result I was getting so others could see what I was seeing...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you meant to say, "Delete: when searching I am not able to find widespread coverage". Praemonitus (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that at least makes sense. Perhaps the reason the nom found nothing is that they were using Hong Kong Google (going by the link provided). The regular Google links above find lots of stuff, especially when you also use the full name. -- 101.119.14.80 (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to European Prize in Combinatorics. Eurocomb gets 772 hits on GScholar and "Eurocomb" -wikipedia gets 247 hits in GBooks, so the papers at Eurocomb do get some coverage. The conference has special issues devoted to it in the European Journal of Combinatorics, for example, Eurocomb'03 and EuroComb '09. The European Journal of Combinatorics is a peer reviewed journal and notable in itself. So the conference series as a whole has coverage in multiple reliable sources. If you think that the European Journal of Combinatorics is sufficiently independent of Eurocomb, (it looks that way to me) then this is sufficient for the topic to pass notability thresholds per WP:GNG. If not, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-M, basic facts about the conference are certainly verifiable and merging of verifiable information is preferred over deletion; the European Prize in Combinatorics, which is awarded at Eurocomb, seems the best target. --Mark viking (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change search domain from "News" to "Web" and I can see plenty of hits. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:39, 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 Move to Sol (laptop) and make a redirect . Move to Sol (laptop) as suggested and make a redirect from the company name; this is where the notability lies. It's what I think we normally do in cases like this. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WeWi[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 21:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Banner - This company has been doing a lot of work overseas with governments, NGO's and institutions, it has been covered over the news (resources which I have included) - I don't understand why this would be deleted. There are no reference to any company Press release, or any news which have come from within the company itself - National papers reviewed the company's products, government releases etc. Please explain what's wrong with this article and I will try to correct it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DSNR (talk • contribs) 21:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be concerns with regards to WP:COATRACK, and the article may need to be renamed to be about the laptop; however, the article is solidly sourced. Due to the short name and my unfamiliarity with them, I had difficulty finding resources on the company itself. At the very least, the laptop has surely established notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2013

- Thank you kindly NinjaRobotPirate. I completely agree, the company's public product is very well covered, I imagine their other work isn't as much (as stated in one of the articles most of their work isn't in the public's eye.) It seems it would be reasonable to keep the information about company which made the product available - When more 3rd party information comes out about the company I'll be sure to keep building on this page. I've edited parts that seem less objective, I'm still learning and have no self-advertising intentions. I'm just passionate about what they do. DSNR (talk

(UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although a consensus to userify due to Wikipedia:Too soon would also make sense. One passionate editor might indicate taking it into their user space until it becomes more clearly notable from more in-depth sources. If it stays, of course it needs much rework. Like most company articles when they are first created, uses the common promotional language made to make the company look much larger than it is. Saying it is "multinational" with subsidiaries and divisions for example, does not really mean anything. Any student can get a web site and claim to serve customers "Worldwide". Once the promotion goes down, the "Coat rack" argument should be less applicable. In fact, I think it should be fine for articles about small companies and their first product to start out under the name of the company, and then spin off the product to an article only when the company has enough other products to make the unified article too unwieldy. Normally we should have a high bar for private companies, since most sources tend to be either primary or just re-posts on web sites of primary sources. In this case the laptop did get some press it appears, but not clear how much is just re-posting the press release. I can take a quick look to see if this can be rescued. W Nowicki (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for the further edits Nowicki. Some of the changes you've made certainly makes the article a lot better. Resources: I didn't see any of the articles re-post or refer to a a company press release - I've actually avoided including all articles that referred to a press release or other news source. The one from London Press, or National Post (It's the largest national newspaper in Canada) met with them and saw the product. The government release mentioned WeWi Ghana (as does the company and some articles) I would have imagined this is enough to establish the company doesn't operate just in Canada. I'm sure a lot more news will come out from them closer to the worldwide release date of Sol (I've been told Mid-November.) It is a bit funny about S.O.L's military use, but from my understanding it means sun in Latin and Spanish, also some ancient sun deity of sorts and apparently, scifi fiction often refers to Earth's star as Sol. DSNR (talk (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.221.192 (talk)
Delete Fails notability MatsTheGreat (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep @MatsTheGreat, You fail to provide explanation as to why this fails notability - Something that's covered by world-wide printed news (you know, those printed papers), has actual releases by a government body and is a company that has done something pretty notable is an article that does not fail notably. If you're going to give an opinion, it has to be solidified through the guidelines, not your own unsubstantiated opinion. That's something I've learned though wikipedia's own guidelines. DSNR (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.221.192 (talk) [reply]

- ~~Keep~~ Also, who is this new MatsTheGreat user? The first 'contribution' this user does is to post a delete note on this article?!? Looks like a troll to me... Competition perhaps. DSNR (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.221.192 (talk) [reply]
  - When when you don't know somebody, there is no need to start vandalising his or her page, as you did. And you can only vote once. The Banner talk 11:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although a lot of work is done, I still see the article as an advertisement about their laptop, not a neutral page with information about a company. So I have removed a lot of spam to make the article more neutral.The Banner talk 11:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, it's great to see the person wanting this article deleted replying to the thread. Although I don't agree that you have removed a reference to a government issue. That's a huge milestone in that company. Also you have removed references to the National Post, Canada's leading national paper. In the effort of making this article more neutral, you removed some of the interesting bits about the development of that company and product. Also, when a user (such as this MatsTheGreat character simply creates a new account just to negate the work of others, he's not making Wikipedia better. He's making it worse. I simply modified his banner to more accurately represent his work. DSNR (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.221.192 (talk) [reply]
- Yes, my friend. I admire your continued efforts to promote the laptop by adding features and linking it from other pages. It only gives more evidence that this article is spam and product promotion. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not for advertising. The Banner talk 11:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- It a product and an evolution to mobile computing and the availability of Linux systems, why is that spam. To date, you have systematically used that word without providing a logical structure as to why you think it's spam (mind you, you are the only one here saying it's a spam). You must have skipped a class or two on how to conduct a debate in an adult manner - explain why this is spam and not information about a technology/system/gadget. Also, do spare me the niceties, you're not my friend. Friends are constructive to one another instead of constantly torpedoing others. DSNR (talk (UTC)

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 // 15:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sol (laptop) (possibly with WeWi as redirect there) or weak keep under this name. Took a look through the pages history and it looks to me like most of the promotional language is gone, though I agree it could still use some rewriting. The laptop itself certainly seems notable enough, but the company less so; while there are some reliable sources that mention the company, the real subject written about seems to be the laptop in most if not all cases. I do not see any proof the company is notable for anything else than the laptop at this moment and I believe that readers will be more likely to search for the laptop than the company. If kept at current location, I believe a mention at the Sol dab-page would be useful. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the 'promotional' language was indeed removed. The laptop is indeed notable. However are we saying that the company which have created it isn't? Can you imagine an article about, say, a notable musical piece, but its composer not notable? There were other articles and references added about the company. The Globe and mail Article talks about the company as well. Can we come up to a decision on this? There are other companies on Wikipedia which have done less, were mentioned in less newspapers or online that are not plagued by the same level of ambush against this article DSNR (talk (UTC)
  - Yes, we do. The subject of an article does not get notability because of its relation with an already notable subject. See Wikipedia:INHERITED#Notability_is_inherited for an explanation. The Banner talk 23:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - The article you've linked to mentions that there could be both cases ("does not always imply the notability...") meaning it can. It's your opinion to chose one side over the other. The company is not only mentioned in these articles and the government release (Globe and Mail, Metro News, London Free Press, etc etc) but the company is discussed about in these articles henceforth the company is notable under the regulations of wikipedia. It seems as if you are acting here on a personal vendetta to discredit the achievement of the company. I've seen companies here with minimal resources and mostly links to press releases. Go chase after them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSNR (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can indeed imagine situations in which an object or piece of art or similar is notable, without the creator or creating company being notable. The only reliable, independent coverage I have been able to discover for this company are short mentions along the lines of "WeWi's $300-ish SOL Laptop [...]" or "WeWi says [such-and-such about the laptop]" or "According to WeWi the SOL Laptop will [...]". I have seen no independent, reliable source write anything about WeWi outside the context of the SOL Laptop; and even within the context of the SOL Laptop, essentially the only information given come in the form of short mentions of non-notable information--with exception of them having developed the SOL Laptop. The references used in the current WeWi article are all predominantly about the laptop, the only exception being WeWi's own site.

You say WeWi is being discussed in these sources. Let's take a look at that.

Source 1 (ZDNet): Has all of a single sentence that is not specifically related to the SOL. The other mentions are cases of "The founder of WeWi says this-and-this about the laptop" and similar.
Source 2 (WeWi): Not independent: WeWi's own site.
Source 3 (PCPro): Not even a single full sentence that is about WeWi in any other context than the laptop, unless you want to count "We spoke to WeWi's founder David Snir to find out more," and that hardly counts as the 'find out more' is really 'find out more about SOL'.
Source 4 (London Free Press): One sentence about WeWi only half-related to the SOL. No other mentions not related.
Source 5 (The Daily Mail): Not even a single sentence mentioning WeWi in any other context than having created the SOL.
Source 6 (The Globe and Mail): A few mentions that are only half-related (mentions of future, SOL-related/based project), nothing much though. All other mentions of WeWi are specifically connected to the SOL.
Source 7 (Computer World): Not a single mention of WeWi in any other context than the SOL.

I'd hardly consider that discussing the company. That's discussing the laptop and mentioning the company as an aside. As to the point of other companies being here with minimal resources, whether that is valid or not does not have a bearing on this AfD, which is about this specific company. Regarding the point of vendetta, which I'm not sure was directed at The Banner or everyone here 'voting' something else than keep, please note that I have no edits to the article of either this company or rivaling companies, and that I have no specific interest in this article one way or the other, except for my wish to help Wikipedia become the best it can be. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to take personal attacks like "vendetta" only as a confirmation of a marketeer running out of reasonable arguments.

The Banner talk 11:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than "one sentence" in the resources. Paragraphs here and there. A marketeer... Sure, think what you'd like, that's your own opinion. I'm not being paid by the company. I'm merely a Londoner, an avid Linux and Ubuntu enthusiast and proud of their project. You on the other end, act as if you know it all (about me, or that company), you systematically remove important things from the article and are generally not giving any logical explanation to your edits - something for which other editors have also noted. DSNR (talk 17:55, 10 November 2013(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.221.192 (talk)

The important part of my message was "one sentence here and there not directly related to the SOL itself", a message I repeat with practically every source I checked.

To me, it seems that the only notable thing about WeWi is the SOL, as being a Canadian company, starting out as ISP or offering ad hoc disaster recovery, to pick out a few, are not notable on their own (and likely would not have been mentioned in one or more independent sources if not for the SOL) under usual circumstances, as seems to be the case with WeWi. (Which is not a bad thing. Unusual circumstances making something normally not notable notable usually are along the lines of huge court cases and scandals, to mention some.)
The fact that out of seven sources, six are predominantly about the SOL and the remaining source is the company's website, does nothing to disprove that either. Should someone find a few reliable and independent sources that give more in-depth information about WeWi, or at least more-than-just-mention them, in a different context than the SOL, I'd agree that it's fine at its current location.
As it stands right now, the company is not what is notable, the laptop is, and the company gets mentioned here and there because of the laptop.
(Also, if you reply to both me and The Banner at the same time, which you seemed to do with last reply, could you please be a bit more clear who you're addressing with which points next time? I got a bit confused at first, thinking "but I never said that" before I realized you likely had switched from addressing me to addressing The Banner, and I assume we'd both rather not end up in a discussion about who-said-what based on such confusion. I know I would rather not.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:20, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chaubey Mukta Prasad[edit]

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

Notability is unclear. No bibliographical information about the sole cited reference (Smriti Granth ("Memorial volume") for Chaubey Mukta Prasad) can be located; its publisher etc are unknown and it is not found in worldcat or other usual databases. No other reference on the subject was found in an online search. Abecedare (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see related discussion here. Abecedare (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sources other than ones that trace back to Wikipedia. Note that the title "Smriti Granth" is a generic name and there are probably hundreds of similarly titled books out there. --regentspark (comment) 17:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entire article is based on a memorial volume (Smriti Granth), and it seems there is no easy way to verify the reliability of this source. The claim that he was the "center of life" for a city the size of Lucknow for 30 some years suggests there should be other sources that mention him. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:46, 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duluth mid air collision[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Accident not involving anyone notable. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William 13:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 13:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions....William 13:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 13:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now only in the news further than a day for the gaudy amount of money NBC News paid for the video, which does not establish notability. Otherwise a normal small airplane crash with no fatalities. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability zero.--Petebutt (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:EVENTCRIT. Miniapolis 03:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe at some point it will become clear that this was a historic event for some reason or another that we are still too close to see. As of right now, this is a WP:NOTNEWS deletion, to my mind. Carrite (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:AIRCRASH suggests light aircraft accidents are generally non-notable. Although this was an unusual and interesting crash it doesn't currently have evidence of enduring notability: there was a brief flurry of "this is neat!" news stories but it's missing the wider, long-term coverage to go beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Any possible merge candidates? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this event is pretty clearly non-notable. Light aircraft crash, no fatalities, no prospect of any enduring significance of this event. It's ironic that Martin451's boomerang post at AN/I will ensure that this AfD gets a lot more attention and hence more delete !votes. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions....William 14:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:XBALL. While there might be some important policy outcome from this accident, it's just too soon to tell if it's significant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable in the world-encyclopedia scheme of things (granted, it was notable for those involved), WP:NOTNEWS ES &L 09:33, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Pattison (author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWRITER Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even though I sort of "created" this article by moving it (see the story on the talk page) I do not vouch for it. In fact, my first guess is that it should get deleted, but I am not weighing in because I don't have knowledge in that genre, nor have I done the research to say "delete" with confidence that I am being fair. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find sources that would pass notability. Simply doing things (author, DJ etc) is not enough. Need independent sources about Pattison per WP:GNG. Article is a vanity spam tizement removed the Amazon link w/ referral code. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was I that initially proposed deletion. I would think it would be done by now. He is not at all significant as a writer in either the "young adult" nor the "horror" categories of fiction, and I have worked professionally in both, but the simplest of web searches will bear this out. Also he has abused wikipedia by inserting afiliate links to his books in his own article...please give the man the ol' heave-ho ASAP. Bustter (talk) 08:32, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Davis (sculptor)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. One sentence of independent coverage. Nothing in te papa. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. As with many of the List of people educated at St Peter's College, Auckland another with no notability apart from attending St Peter's School/College, (i.e. none). Is the list itself even wiki-compliant? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little coverage online, a Google search of ("Glen Davis' site:.nz) found two sources, the one in the article and this one,[22] neither enough to meet notability guidelines. Google Books no mention. If the artist had a website sometimes they will list exhibitions which helps in making a case for WP:ARTIST but unable to find evidence of any serious exhibitions. Could be awards but unable to find any. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:31, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Hutchings[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, just a run-of-the-mill civil servant/public servant. None of the positions he's held are sufficient for notability (even ambassadors/High Commissioners aren't automatically notable and he was only a deputy); many of the sources are from non-professional or non-independent sources (e.g. school magazine, directory, journal of minor organization) and the rest don't look like significant coverage; much of the content, e.g. school prizes, is of interest only to Hutchings' family and his alma mater. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some minor mentions in Google Books as press secretary. Nothing in Trove. Nothing in a Google search of ("Warwick Hutchings" site:.nz). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:18, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Treston[edit]

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

Not notable. Judge at low-level trial courts. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does his presence in New Zealand Who's Who convey any notability? I don't know how reliable/independent this volume is, or whether you can pay for inclusion, or how exclusive it is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Alister Taylor for the publisher. That suggests to me not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of real notability. No in depth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many news sources that report on court cases in which he served as judge and thus his name comes up tangentially. However this will be true for any judge in the course of duties - court cases often end up in the news. None of the cases are very high profile. Otherwise unable to find sources about the judge himself. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:50, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Marino[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is a claim to notability in that he discovered some astronomical phenomenon, but this is unreferenced and I couldn't find any significant coverage of him online. If someone with knowledge of astronomy is able to explain/prove Marino's importance, I'll be happy to change my mind. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of real notability. No in depth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The primary assertion of notability is related to Ursae Majoris but a Google search ("Brian Marino" Ursae Majoris) finds nothing, except content sourced to Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:45, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Francis McCarthy[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (The Cyclopedia of New Zealand : Canterbury Provincial District is vanity publishing). One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty obviously not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no claim of notability (sourcing or assertions) and unable to find any through basic searches. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:40, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Perry (public servant)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another that's pretty obviously not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of real notability. No in depth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total absence of reliable sources with significant coverage. That I can see. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:36, 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 keep. (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RNS string theory[edit]

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

Full of unreliable sources and unsourced content. ReferencesAreImportant (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, Wikipedia should clearly have an article with this title. The current version may be problematic but AfD is not for cleanup.—S Marshall T/C 11:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as KEEP. Article frivolously nominated for deletion by suspected (and reported) sock of indefinitely blocked User:PsiEpsilon, who has previously targeted the article multiple times through a number of different confirmed socks, including User:Dimension10. The AfD-tags on the article were added by the suspected sock IP 219.90.100.145 while the AfD-entry was created by User:ReferencesAreImportant. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seem plenty of reliable in-depth sources e.g. [23][24][25] --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RNS string gets 153 hits in GScholar and RNS superstring gets 130 hits; 131 and 97 hits, respectively, in GBooks. This is a known concept in string theory and was important at the start of the string theory revolution. There are ample peer-reviewed papers (Colapeninsula quotes three above) and books to satisfy notability thresholds, per WP:GNG. With regard to this and some other string theory articles, there is some controversy over the sourcing. Some claim that introductory materials like String theory DeMystified aren't suitable as reliable sources for this material. They have a point, but improving the article through better sourcing is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, so is not a reason for deletion. A notable topic and surmountable problems with the article suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important concept in physics and, as indicated above, many heavyweight sources are available. Easily meets WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:35, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Carmody[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Best is this local interest piece, not enough. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any other sources besides the Stuff article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of real notability. No in depth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 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 redirect to List of journalists killed and missing in the Vietnam War. v/r - T P 03:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Birch (journalist)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The is coverage of the event in which he died but that is about the event, not Birch, and Wikipedia is not the news. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change from Keep to same but Rename (See below): Birch has WP:SIGCOV in monographs that are not on the Internet. Still enough is on the Internet that clearly shows that WP:LASTING is also relevant here in our evaluation. The nominator misses the overall phenomenon of Journalists killed while covering military conflicts and mistakes it for memorials and news. A couple of references in an article about a person doesn't mean that the article is a memorial from school chums.Crtew (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify which articles have significant coverage about Birch. The enough on the internet shows the event where the four journalist were killed has a lasting impact (WP:LAST is for events). It does not say the same for all the individuals involved. What we see is that Michael Birch, 24, was a promising young reporter from Melbourne. The phenomenon of Journalists killed is notable but not all the individuals are. WP:VICTIM is probably the closest guidline here. It's not the just the "couple of references in an article" that connect it to the school, it's the flooding by an involved party (recently a SPA) onto Wikipedia of the multitude of bios of non notable people from that one school. See here for a list of current AfDs. This glut includes clearly innapropriate pages like this. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind as I've expanded and added references to the article: The treatment should shift from the person to the overall event, renamed, and deal equally with all of the participants. This was the only event where Australian journalists were killed during the Vietnam War. This is still not the news as the event is WP:Lasting for later treatments, including the meeting between the only survivor and the Vietnamese leader or its place in the Indo-China war memorial to journalists. Moreover, Birch was most likely singled out as he survived the initial burst of gunfire and clearly identified the group as journalists, which places this incident in a new category under international law as a human rights violation. I still adamantly disagree with associating this article with school chum memorials. It's too important an event to be dismissed as such. The above SPA is irrelevant in my decision-making. Does anybody have a good suggestion for a renaming? Crtew (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support move and rewriting to be about the event. However Birch was not singled out because he survived the first burst, he was singled out because he went to St Peters. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, important participant in very tragic event.Rick570 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Murder of the Cholon Four (per [26]). The event in which 4 Australian journalists were murdered during the Vietnam War has had LASTING impact and coverage. We don't need separate articles retelling the same event in 4 different biography articles. Same conclusion as User:Crtew. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom's proposed title is an excellent suggestion! Crtew (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:Green Cardamom, who proposes an excellent solution to this problem. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Perhaps Killing of the Cholon Four. While it seems clear that two were murdered it's less clear cut for the first two killed. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:16, 12 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. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Armstrong[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One NZ Catholic obit [27] is not enough. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of real notability. No in depth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mere 3 lines on his ministry says it all: clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 84-word obituary does not suggest notability. The other sources, except maybe one, are not clearly significant coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:25, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Schell[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Article is full of primary sources from organisations he is connected to. Most sources do not verify the claims made. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of real notability. No in depth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Adabow (talk) 22:31, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Matthews (classicist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Richard J H Matthews

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

Not notable [28]. No notable publications. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Most sources are by him not about him. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable academic fails WP:SCHOLAR. Most refs are things by him or are to local/vanity/trivial sources, hence failing WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DElete. I can't find anything much in GS, which would be the only chance for this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no evidence of real notability. No in depth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched for the book "Classical New Zealand poetry" and unable to find any book reviews. It's an old book so maybe they are in offline archives but it seems unlikely there would 7 or 10 book reviews in reliable sources required to overcome all the other lack of sourcing. The book itself is not well known according to library and reported user holdings. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just isn't any evidence that his writing has made the impact needed for WP:PROF#C1, nor that he is notable in any other way. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 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.

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. --BDD (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Darby[edit]

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

Not notable. Is lead author on a few reasonably cited works but does not seem to have a significant impact. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Not a notable politician, didn't win a major election. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:Prof#C1 with h-index of around 10. Not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no evidence of real notability. No in depth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:49, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Oakes (music teacher)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (The Cyclopedia of New Zealand : Canterbury Provincial District is vanity publishing). One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)". Present in directory but no reliable sources to come close to WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no evidence of real notability. No in depth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:50, 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 redirect to Tapper Transport. v/r - T P 03:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Tapper[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One good obit in The New Zealand Herald but that's it. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 09:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Adabow (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As alternative to deletion, could consider merge with Tapper Transport: that isn't well-sourced, but having articles on both is superfluous. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tapper Transport. A merge if desired can take place later from history with proper attribution, as currently that article is a stub and a merger would have a high chance of running afoul of WP:UNDUE, however a redirect here is highly appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 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. v/r - T P 03:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Waite[edit]

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

Not notable. (not G Waite from Michigan Technological University.) Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. GS cites of 8 and 1. Cites for classics tend to be very low, but this is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, found 3 book reviews but not enough for WP:AUTHOR #3. 4 or so more might change to Keep.

Parergon, Volume 13, Number 1, July 1995
Parergon, Volume 19, Number 1, January 2002
The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 101, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 116-118

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:29, 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 keep. v/r - T P 03:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harris (public servant)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As an academic, his citation numbers are only in the low double digits, not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. But I just added several newspaper sources for his work at the electoral commission and in several international capacities since then. Although none of these have much in the way of detail about Harris (hence the weakness of my keep !vote), I think these roles may have a high enough profile to make the article worth saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played important role in development of NZ's MMP electoral system.Rick570 (talk) 02:52, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Henry (journalist)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Name shows up a lot as Press Secretary with quotes and media contacts but that is part of the job being a PS not notable. Unable to find anything about Henry directly. He is a hero if that counts for anything: "Police raid penis enlargement spammer". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:13, 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 redirect to X rating. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X Rated[edit]

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

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

Redirect this title to X rating (and rename title to X Rated (album)) ~~Redirect to Excision_(musician)#Albums~~ - A Google News search seems to have provided irrelevant results and Google Books seems to have found a Billboard magazine entry from October 2011 but the preview is very short. I also found another billboard.com link here but it's very minimal at most. I don't see anything else to improve this article so, as usual, redirect to the artist's discography. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this title to X rating Most are probably looking for the defunct MPAA rating than this album, which should be titled X Rated (album) and redirected to Excision (musician)#Albums appropriately as the album itself doesn't have much notability. Nate • (chatter) 20:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this title to X rating The editor above is correct that the most likely search for this term will be from individuals seeking an explanation of the media rating system. If there's anything in this article that's of value, list it on the artist's page. If at some point in the future there's enough secondary coverage of this album to warrant its own article, it can be called X Rated (album) or something like. -Markeer 23:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:03, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Artifacts[edit]

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

Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Touring lacks coverage. Falls short of to album on an important label. Nothing coming close to WP:MUSIC. Sonicbids, bandcamp, youtube, facebook, tumblr, last.fm, Rocketshiplive are not good sources. A calender listing is not non trivial coverage. Ain’t No Party Like The As Artifacts Party! is just the band talking about themselves. A one paragraph review in Music & Noise Magazine is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 6 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 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found non-notable blogs, user-generated album reviews, and the band's social networking pages, but no significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gong show 08:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite numerous searches including Google News, I found nothing in-depth aside from more small stuff here, here and here. There aren't even some in-depth magazine/news articles. As far it's concerned, this band is an ordinary indie band. No prejudice towards a future article when the time comes. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:01, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nebulae (band)[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Being part of abelton live community is not notable. Band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Releases not on important label. Current sourcing is payplayfm, adverts, dead shop, dead interview, forum. Nothing good. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC rather miserably. Should have been kept deleted the first time, rather than embarrass them by going through an AFD ES &L 11:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current references are not in-depth and don't even help the article and numerous searches of my own including Google News provided nothing. There's not even an Allmusic.com page. I'm from the DFW area and have never heard of him (though to be honest, I'm not much of an electronica fan). Nothing to improve this article and it reads more like a resume or something he would put on his own website. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nebulae is an Ableton Certified Trainer, as evidenced on Ableton.com, see http://www.ableton.com/en/education/certified-training/us/abid-hussain-new-orleans-la-and-dallas-tx/ There are fewer than 200 Ableton Certified Trainers in the world, which makes this credential an important independent third party verification, and therefore it is quite notable. Furthermore, Nebulae has helped me and countless others with music production techniques and tutorials over the past 10 years. His music has been released and enjoyed for more than 20 years. Just because you personally haven't heard of him doesn't make him lose noteworthiness. If you dig a little bit on Google and search for Nebulae and Porcelain Vortex Productions, you will see listings for Nebulae going back as far as 1995. Rather than delete this page, we should seek to improve it with updated links." Jb61264 talk • 00:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC) — Jb61264 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The thing is though that it isn't that we haven't heard of him, it's that there doesn't seem to be reliable third-party in-depth coverage such as news articles about him. Links like LinkedIn and personal websites aren't third-party because it would all be on the person's word. You can add references too, visit Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to get started. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Third party interview link was incorrect/dead and needs to be updated to http://regenmag.com/interviews/chlorophyll-interview-no-more-waiting/ In addition, Nebulae music is credited on numerous CDs and shows. See the soundtrack credit on this IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1516196/ Also, Nebulae is listed as a remixer for Dallas artist, Triprocket, who is indeed listed on Artistdirect.com at http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/window/media/page/0,,2706264-6552159,00.html (see the Nebulae remix and the Porcelain Vortex remix). The Triprocket remix album also contains Nebulae in the liner notes at http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7146380 I will update the wiki page to remove dead links and edit it for content. Do Not Delete.Omss6627 —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC) — Omss6627 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ - I have updated the article with notable links to third party references and edited for style. The article now meets WP:NMUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles #10, as well as Others #1, in addition to numerous other third party links.Omss6627 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.191.148.4 (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you can only vote once. SwisterTwister talk 16:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep I am a founding member of Triprocket, a well-established band in Dallas. I can confirm that Nebulae is a band/artist that has existed and released music for more than 20 years. Specifically, Nebulae has provided multiple remixes for us that has been published by several independent labels, including well-established 10th Planet records in Dallas. See the following links:

- http://www.allmusic.com/album/thrills-and-chills-mw0000326449/credits - http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/putty-in-their-hands-thrills/id9584580 - http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7146380 Nebulae's remix of our song "Wild Life" was featured on MTV's "The Real World: New Orleans" in 2000. See http://www.broadjam.com/artists/songs.php?artistID=265&mediaID=388 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokusspokuss2000 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC) — Hokusspokuss2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I am the Editor-in-Chief for ReGen Magazine, an independent and well respected online music magazine that has been publishing articles since 2002. I can verify that the article we published about Nebulae and Chlorophyll was lost in a hard drive crash in 2010, which is why the link was dead. We are fans of Nebulae and Chlorophyll, and we are more than happy to have republished the article in its original form at http://regenmag.com/interviews/chlorophyll-interview-no-more-waiting/ This artist is noteworthy and the wiki page should not be deleted. ReGenMagazine —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC) — ReGenMagazine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Thanks for the people above that added sources. However, sources like Discogs, iTunes and CDUniverse aren't considered good sources because they're simply album listings and don't talk about significant information about the artist. In-depth coverage is being coverered by a well-known local newspaper or even national newspaper, say, USA Today or New York Times. Even reliable music magazines will be acceptable as long as the magazine article contains good information. The best source currently used in this article is probably the ResidentAdvisor link because it at least contains some useful information. Everyone can have an iTunes or Discogs page but not everyone can get in-depth coverage, which is needed in this article and that is why Wikipedia has guidelines like these. SwisterTwister talk 16:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not everyone can get an IMDB credit for a television series. Nebulae has a soundtrack credit on the show "Crash" as the IMDB link shows, and Nebulae's music has appeared on MTV shows. This meets Wikipedia's stated guidelines for notability. Omss6627 —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's no in-depth coverage for the soundtrack credit and most people don't anyway (under the radar and behind the scenes). Alot of people have an IMDb page but not all of them get in-depth coverage of good substance. Take Max Cooper (electronica musician) for example, that article has more substance and better references. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of coverage in user-generated media, but no evidence of coverage in truly reliable sources. We can have an article when the band begins getting coverage in sources such as books or academic journals or government websites, or when the news media start covering them in a context other than reporting the news about them. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I'm an electronic music producer living in Dallas and I consider Nebulae to be one of the most, if not the most influential artists to the Dallas electronic music scene. When I moved from Chicago to Dallas in 2008 I left a city that created house music and found myself in a city with virtually no organized electronic music scene. Today that is no longer the case and Nebulae is largely responsible for the change. He is an artist that is well known and well respected in Dallas due to his many talents and his willingness to teach. I think the page should be kept to document and preserve the history of this artist because of his influence, past and present, in the electronic music scene. As far as notoriety goes, I hope the editors will keep in mind the "underground" nature that is often desired and somewhat intrinsically predominant in electronic music scenes. In my opinion everything on the page appears to be factual and does not read as self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWikiWikiShutUp (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC) — WikiWikiWikiShutUp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Though I also live in the DFW area, I'm not familiar with the electronica music club scene but I've never heard of him. I'm guessing alot of other people haven't heard of him either because there's not much coverage. See, that's also the thing, being "underground" and "appears factual" is unacceptable if there's isn't any significant and third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to debate closer - Although it seems the "keep" votes are outweighing the "delete", alot of these keep votes have yet to bring forth some significant third-party coverage (aside from the usual Discogs, iTunes, etc.) which is needed especially for an article that this much information. Comments proving they've worked with the subject and that he has been around for a long time don't change the fact that there's not much to improve the article. Again, I thank the "keep" users for their efforts and time but, if we accepted every article with a Discogs/iTunes/etc, Wikipedia would be very messy. I understand this artist has probably been ignored and thus there's not much coverage but those are the guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 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. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tidewater Unix Users Group[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing to add, support or even improve this article. A Google news search provides little results with two of them mentioning a member. Another search provided one of the previous results (which is dead but recoverable). Google Books provided very little as well with the most being Wikipedia mirrors and one brief mention in a 2005 book about Linux. Small group discussing something notable (Unix/Linux) but non-notable itself. Everything in this article is their word with nothing third-party to support it. Final searches provided nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There are no external sources and the article doesn't even make any claims about notability. FurrySings (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty clearly not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7, no significance whatsoever. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 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 delete. v/r - T P 03:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer HPM-100[edit]

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

Deletion for this article is contested. The article has been up for years, but an editor has tagged it for speedy and was reverted by IP. History also shows a contested PROD, so I'm going to let consensus decide if this product is notable. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I see no evidence that this article fails to meet any criteria. Wikitam331 (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the only reference is to an advert, coupled with poor results for a Google search, seem to me evidence that it may not meet WP:GNG. Unless you know other sources? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*comment needs more sources to show notability/impact, otherwise I'd say delete or merge. PeteBaltar (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now, if sources can be found the article can be recreated. FurrySings (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as device is well covered topic in many articles: [29], [30], [31] [32] [33], but still needs improvements and more references. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I followed three of those five links, two did not even mention this product/topic. Huw Powell (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Followed the other two, nothing there either. Changing my !vote below. Huw Powell (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Current article's only source is an advertisement, and content reads like one - actually is mostly quoted from the ad. If there are real sources available to build an article on this topic, then let it be written based on them. As of now, this seems no more encyclopedic than if I wrote an article on every speaker I could come up with based on manufacturer's advertising. And by that I don't mean "other stuff exists", I mean this one, as it stands, shouldn't. Huw Powell (talk) 02:33, 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. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covert Medication[edit]

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

Delete, the articles do not show that Covert Medication, while mentioned, doesn't show it is an actual term in widespread usage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is, at the moment, a fairly awful little stub with an entirely Anglocentric view of the situation, cited only to news stories that don't always agree on the terminology. That all said, the topic is a real thing, and there are plenty of better sources, of which I'll link only a representative sample: Western Journal of Medicine [34], Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine [35], Journal of Medical Ethics [36], Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law [37], BMJ [38], and a number of books published by reliable publishers, such as this one by the British Medical Association (published by Wiley) or this work on nursing law (published by Routledge). The page should be moved, however, to Covert medication, with a lowercase M. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to the lowercase m, and I don't believe the Anglocentric view is present anymore, as I removed most of the blathering and reduced the text to what could be sourced to review sources compliant with WP:MEDRS, using sources from India, UK, Scotland, and the USA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Plenty of sources show up on google [39], and also on google scholar [40]. FurrySings (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The added sources pretty conclusively establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't look right I have no problems with the nom being withdrawn. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm also inclined to keep this article as it has received considerably good coverage, with Google News searches #1 and #2 (supports the common usage in UK, with links to US and UK news) and Google Books also providing some coverage. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, UCSF Department of Psychiatry, journal-published source PMID 22635297 in addition to numerous others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 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. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flexpoint Ford[edit]

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

This topic does not meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG: a good faith search on this topic brings up nothing but press releases from the company itself, and press releases disguised as news items (e.g. PR Wire). A link on the article to a NYT Profile of a company partner includes no information about the company itself. That Gerald Ford (not the former-president) is a limited partner is irrelevant, as is having a "prominent employee" (who seems to only be prominent for playing poker). Notability is not inherited through association. Additionally, the creator of this article is himself an employee of the company (see [41]. His only 3 edits on the encyclopedia were to create this article and place a link to it on the list of equity firms article.

In short: an article created through a COI account, on a topic with no evident substantive support in 3rd party sources. AstroCog (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - My first Google News searches provided several results, with PR and news articles. I don't believe Wikipedia always considers bizjournals.com to be an in-depth source, but I found minor menton here, unsubstantial anyway. Minor mention in a reliable source, CNN, but minor mention and mentions a subsidiary of theirs, which mustn't be notable either. The company seems to have gained more attention through their associates, Steve Begleiter and Gerald J. Ford, with an article here (again, reliable source but minor mention). More minor mentions like this one and bizjournals.com links, not much in-depth. Final Google News searches provided nothing else different. Google Books didn't provide anything good either. As always, no prejudice towards a new article in the future. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING - The articles more like an advert than an encyclopedic article.

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:34, 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. --BDD (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Keeland[edit]

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

Revised several times , but remains promotional and of borderline notability DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Certainly not notable enough and stinks of being a vanity article written by himself or an associate. --Cantivsto (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to contain any significant coverage of the individual in any of the references I could look through WP:GNG TomKoenig (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm from the DFW area (born and raised) and have never heard of any of his companies. Google News searches provide mostly local news coverage, of course, but even then they're not in-depth about anything he does to make it notable. Searches for the three companies listed show pretty much the same results. The article is very detailed but the problem is that it's too promotional. Even when the article started, it was pretty much the same. Nothing actually in-depth. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I posted the original article. After it was nominated for deletion, I did some research, scrapped the article, and rewrote it. I hope it meets Wikipedia standards for notability and complies with all other guidelines. If it does not, I'm very willing to learn how to make it better, and I thank you for your patience. Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HtownCat asked me to revisit this. It is somewhat improved, but I continue to think there is no substantial notability. There might possibly be a place for an article on the company. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personalities of Hala Clan in Halanew[edit]

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

This is an unsourced collection of biographies and anecdotes about life in the Hala Tribe. Most of the material was brought in with this edit. Not sure if this qualifies for speedy A7, so I am nominating for deletion via AFD. Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced and rather irrelevant list of personal accounts. It seems quite strange to me as the subject of an article in the first place. --Cantivsto (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to publish novels. Green Giant (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic. Nevertheless a poignant example of tribal/clan culture being deleted by the modern world. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:00, 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) 00:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BuyTigers.com[edit]

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

Not exactly the most notable thing in the world. Especially suspicious that the article is up there now and the site was created by a twenty three year old SEO "expert".... Egg Centri c 01:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unfortunately, whilst you might be right in this being part of a larger ruse to achieve notoriety by the chap in question, a quick look at the talk page for the article shows quite clearly enough grounds to justify the notability of the page. --Cantivsto (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources where this is the main/only topic, meets notability WP:NPOL TomKoenig (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, it satisfies WP:NWEB. The hoax was apparently well-reported. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I partially rewrote the article to make it less promotional and better highlight its notability. I located a source that identified it as one of the best Internet hoaxes, added a news article or two, and removed a bit of trivia. There really isn't all that much to say about this site, and I think it could probably be merged (to List of hoaxes, I suppose?) without issue, but there is enough coverage to actually keep it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:27, 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 Chicago Cubs minor league players. v/r - T P 03:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyler Burke[edit]

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

Minor league baseball free agent.. no claim to notability.. nothing special here. Spanneraol (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see some sources but nothing that makes him notable.--Yankees10 02:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chicago Cubs minor league players, as the article itself doesn't meet WP:WPBB/N as: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable", but if we already have a list about these players, the article could stay as a redirect. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's currently a minor league free agent so redirecting to the Cubs page is improper. And, frankly, I feel those minor league player pages should be primarily for top prospects and guys on or close to being on the 40 man roster, not run of the mill minor league lifers. Spanneraol (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think a better time to do the 'purge' of minor league player Wikipedia articles would be mid-regular season or right before the start of the season, not right after the start of free agency declarations. It doesn't give players an adequate amount of time to sign with new teams and, therefore, it doesn't give us enough time to gauge whether the player articles should be redirected to team minor league pages or kept. Kyler Burke, a former first round draft pick who has become a successful pitcher at the minor league level, maintains a strong chance of being signed by a major league team before the start of the 2014 campaign.

In regards to the suggestion that team minor league pages should exist only for top prospects, I highly disagree, for multiple reasons. The name of the articles is "[Team]'s minor league players," not "[Team]'s top prospects." The titles are all-inclusive, therefore the pages should be all-inclusive. In addition, the definition of "top prospect" and "near major leaguer" is very fluid and differs from person to person. Lastly, many - if not most - major league players were never top prospects and often weren't considered 40-man possibilities until they were actually promoted. Not allowing non-top prospect players to be included will inevitably lead to many future major leaguers' articles being deleted prematurely. Alex (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cant include every player in the entire system.. you need to have a cut off somewhere. Spanneraol (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That "cut-off" is too arbitrary. I don't suggest a profile be written for every player in every minor league system, but every minor leaguer - that is in a major league organization, of course - with an article should be merge-able with the team's minor league players page, if his article is not strong enough to exist on its own. Alex (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability and fails GNG. Wizardman 16:32, 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 redirect to Courtney_Fathom_Sell#Filmography. v/r - T P 03:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White Clover - Film[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would there be merit in redirecting this to the DVD compilation set? The two reviews on the page appear to be for the DVD set as a whole rather than for the individual films, so it'd probably be better to merge a slight bit of material to Hi8 - The Short Documentaries of Courtney Fathom Sell, clean that article up, and just redirect there. I'm not really finding many/any sources that talk about this film outside of the DVD set. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. I can only find two reviews for the actual DVD set. Everything else is for the individual films and while I don't think that each of the films merits an article (this one doesn't), the director is clearly notable and would merit this getting 'redirected to Courtney Fathom Sell. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I've redirected a lot of Sell related material, as all of it tended to fall within the same issues: no coverage outside of Sell himself. I've also cleaned up his article, which was a study in puffery. I don't think that this was promotional, mind you, just an over exuberant new editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Courtney_Fathom_Sell#Filmography. I stand by my earlier statement that Sell is notable enough for his own article, but this film doesn't seem to be independently notable outside of him. I've done a lot of major editing on articles related to him and Rev Jen, merging and redirecting a lot of the applicable content to their articles. I want to re-state that I think that this is just a new editor and I've dropped a few notes on their page about sourcing and such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Henningham[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. his academic and writing career is unremarkable. and the article has a number of primary sources. the coverage I've found is about him making comments in the media rather than him as the subject. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's in Who's Who in Australia. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a criterion for meeting WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's in Who's Who in Australia. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

that is not a criterion for meeting WP:BIO .LibStar (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Who's Who ref (the commonwealth Who's Whos report on notable figures, unlike the US one which doesn't have a high standard of inclusion). And the citation of him as important for being the first Professor level (high in commonwealth countries; usually enough in itself for keep) journalism researcher is enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - awarded 1st PhD in Journalism in Australia. I think that alone would indicate notability. Combined with everything else, this is an easy case for passing the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 12 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced NTFS Undelete (Software)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). Only sources are download site blurbs or the company's own website. No reliable sources found. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete fails WP:NSOFT for sure, no references other than the sites on commercial website, looks like a promotional gig.TomKoenig (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This software never appeared to have received news coverage as shown in Google News searches#1 (press releases) and #2. Google Books also didn't provide anything. Even Google News searches for the parent company, DataNumen, didn't provide much outside of press releases. Final searches for Advanced NTFS Undelete provided nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a press release above the software but nothing else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:28, 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.

[1] "OUT OF STOCK". Retrieved 16 October 2013.

[2] "American Puzzle Company falling on tough times". Retrieved 16 October 2013.

[3] "Train Wreck: Ownership Change Causes Stir for Valley Park Railroad Shop". Retrieved 16 October 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]