Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 November	9 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 delete. v/r - T P 02:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Williams (baseball)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article, poorly written, about a non notable individual. Previous afd led to a merge but he is no longer with the Giants. Spanneraol (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently the article was moved since previous afds, which are here and here.Spanneraol (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Has played in the Dominican Professional Baseball League, the highest-level league in the Dominican Republic, therefore he passes WP:BASEBALL/N. Alex (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dominican Professional Baseball League is a winter league for (mostly) low level minor leaguers, and should not be considered a top-level competition. If it does fit under BASEBALL/N, then I say delete per WP:IAR. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I have said and proven, the DPBL is not only for low-level minor leaguers, instead a large percentage, if not a majority, of its participants are players with major league experience, high-level minor league experience and top prospects. The same reasoning I have used to defend the articles of these players has been used by others to defend keeping pages of those who played in the Mexican League (and other relatively weak national leagues), which I would argue is a much less competitive league than the DPBL. I would highly suggest a discussion on changing the wording of WP:BASEBALL/N at the appropriate talk page, because I would likely vote delete if the stipulation I'm citing wasn't there. But as it is written now, I cannot with a clear conscience vote delete. Alex (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as Muboshgu.--Yankees10 17:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Muboshgu's argument. Winter leagues are almost never considered elite pro leagues – they wouldn't be playing in winter if they were. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:06, 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 Speedy delete a11, story that article author made up. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who did patricks homework[edit]

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

Obviously non-notable. Also, article is poorly written. m'encarta (t) 22:13, 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 delete. v/r - T P 02:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Kubesh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Can't find any trace of him playing pro ball. ...William 21:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-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]

Delete per nom. He apparently was in the NFL, but he never played in any regular season or post-season games, so he fails WP:NGRIDIRON. ChromaNebula (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Collegiate all-Americans generally create enough press to surpass WP:GNG even if they don't pass WP:GRIDIRON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He was a collegiate all-american at a Division II school. Don't forget these are Kubesh's claims as reported in a newspaper article 35 years after the fact. Google news comes up with zero on kubesh's football playing when it supposedly took place....William 12:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no reason to assume bad faith at this time. And in 1955, there were no divisions in the NCAA. Divisions started in 1956, one year after he played his last year. If you care, the program is now Divsion I FCS (but that should have no bearing on this discussion).--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*New information appears to pass WP:NGRIDIRON having played professionally in the CFL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC) I stand corrected.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - The same article that claims he played for the Colts and was a little all-american also says he was drafted by the Colts in 1954. He wasn't. Check out 1954 NFL Draft or 1955 NFL Draft. We know from many sources that Kubesh never played in the NFL. I'd safely say based on all that it fails WP:RS. The subject of an article lying to a reporter about easily verifiable facts is hardly unknown. Ian Bannen claimed here[1] that he won an Academy Award for best supporting actor....William 18:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's interesting and insightful! I don't think we should be using other Wikipedia articles for reference on another Wikipedia article when it comes to notability or even accuracy. I did check the NFL.com pages and did not find the individual in question for those seasons, but it appears that their records are incomplete. However, for the purposes of this AFD, I would be willing to concede that the subject never played professionally. That leaves us with the "Little all-American" award. Is it reliable or not? I will argue that if it is true then the subject passes WP:NCOLLATH (see below). If it is not true, then I see no reason to keep this article. The question then becomes: did the reference article author make a mistake on this issue, or is it accurate? I would ask that we extend this AFD for an additional relisting period (what, 7 days?) to find an alternate source to confirm (or possibly deny) the information. If a second independent source is not found for this award, then it should be deleted because the source has come in to question. However, I'm not ready at this point to say that if one part of the source is incorrect, then the whole source is incorrect. Also, I would change my completely if we can find evidence that the source in question is not a relable source. But I don't think that potentially one mistake crosses that threshhold. Thoughts?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - To be fair there is another issue: Does being named a "little all-American" pass the threshhold of notability. I maintain that it has in the past and does here. If the subject never was named to such an award or if consensus decides that if he did it doesn't matter, then the result would be to delete the article. I think that sums it up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to nfl.com/players he never played in the NFL and the source cited for him playing in the CFL is about fullback Don Kubesh from Winnipeg, not Ron Kubesh an American linebacker/guard. The article also says he was a small college all-American. Even then there was a difference between playing for Notre Dame and North Dakota. Papaursa (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON. Being a "Little All-American" is not enough to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes it is. It is a national award and meets WP:NCOLLATH, and this guideline has been widely accepted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming that being a division 2 or division 3 or NAIA all-American is grounds for automatic notability? I think that's a stretch. Don't forget many of these teams have first, second, and third teams as well as "honorable mentions"--all of whom can claim to be "all American". Papaursa (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above: there were no divisions in 1955. The NAIA did exist but this program competed in the NCAA. Plus, it isn't "my claim" but WP:NCOLLATH.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But he wasn't an "All American", he was a "Little All American" which means the award was for people competing at what was then referred to as "small colleges", so there was a distinction even then. There were even small college ratings back then. Regardless of whether the NCAA had divisions or not, there was still a recognized difference between different levels. If you look at http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2001football_finest.pdf which lists "all 2868 players (from 156 colleges) over 112 years who made at least one first team on the selections used by the NCAA" you'll not find Kubesh's name listed. Papaursa (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline calls for any college athlete that has "won a national award..." and does not specify all-American, little all-American, or Heisman. As for the document you provided, please read it first. It does not contain all athletes that played over 112 years as you imply. The information itself states on page 4 "we have assembled a collection of some of the finest college football players" indicating that other quality players were excluded. On page 5 the document states, "Some wartime figures are missing." ~~(which covers the years of eligibility of the athlete in question)~~ and the next sentence states, "A handful of consensus all-Americans are excluded because nearly all their career figures came in one season." We clearly need to have better information to make an informed decision. Without better information, I still maintain that we should assume good faith unless there is some other policy being violated.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I not only have looked at the document, I quoted from page 157 "All time All America roster". This document contains individual records, which is what your quote refers to, while my reference is specifically about All-Americans. According to the NCAA Kubesh wasn't named on any first team All America squad. If he wasn't an All-American then what national award did he win? If you admit it was as a small college All American player (akin to the current division 2) then you're claiming all division all-Americans are notable. You have no reliable sources to show whether. even for small colleges, he was anything other than honorable mention and I believe WP policy says the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several points to respond: (1) Ignoring my comments doesn't make them false. Read page 4. Then read page 5. The document you provide admits that it is an incomplete source, ~~especially during "wartime" (presumably WWII or at least including it) which covers the entire college career of the dude in question.~~ It's incomplete, therefore we cannot definitively determine if he received a national award or not from the document you provide. (2) The article states the award was for "Little All-American" which would imply a national award for a player at a smaller school. WP:NCOLLATH merely states a "national award" and does not exclude a "Little All-American" award or provide any specifics. It does offer a list of examples but specifies that the list is not restrictive. It's not "me" that is claiming that "all division All-Americans" are notable, but WP:NCOLLATH. (3) There is no violation in policy that I can find to assume good faith in the sources we have. We believe that the source in question made one mistake but I don't think we need to dismiss the entire article. I would prefer to find more, as I stated above.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't respond to your comment about WW2 players because it was irrelevant--or do you really believe that war lasted until the mid 1950s when Kubesh played? Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. Dislexia strikes again. I swapped 1945 and 1954. I struck the comments. But the document still admits that it is not all-inclusive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Silveira[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with Papaursa because I think UFC Japan probably counts as top tier, but that's still not enough to meet WP:NMMA and he fails WP:GNG since the only source is a link to his fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 17:32, 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. v/r - T P 21:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Moskowitz[edit]

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

MMA artist with only two top tier fights both losses. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter. Article's only source is a link to his fight record so fails WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mdtemp has it right. Clearly fails GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:30, 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. v/r - T P 21:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wiezorek[edit]

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

MMA fighter with only single top tier fight Peter Rehse (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One top tier fight is not enough to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 17:23, 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. v/r - T P 21:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Roberts[edit]

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

On notability grounds - MMA fighter with only one top tier fight. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the three top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the fights to meet WP:NMMA and the only coverage is a link to his fight record so he fails WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:35, 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. v/r - T P 21:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Hodges[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 multiple exceptional third-party sources out there that would pass GNG. Wizardman 20:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WPBB/N, only minor league competitions. Alex^{discussion ★} 20:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was covered by the Chattanoogan, Times Free Press, Washington Times, Cleveland.com, Ohio.com, among others. Passes WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Alex (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is no different than hundreds of other non-notable minor leaguers.--Yankees10 18:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not a notable minor leaguer. Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that this person actually meets WP:GNG, and also WP:BASIC, per the sources provided above by User:Alexsautographs and those already present in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above. I've also added more sources to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor leaguers don't usually get this sort of coverage. He thus meets WP:GNG. Dream Focus 09:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The coverage Alex showed above is sufficient for WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Enthiran. v/r - T P 02:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chitti (character)[edit]

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

There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that are substantively about this character that establish its notability separate from the film in which it appears. The sources that are out there appear to be primarily about the film (plot summaries and the like) and discuss the character only within the context of the film and not from the out-of-universe perspective required when writing about fiction. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional character, article fails to establish out of universe notability. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Enthiran. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Enthiran. I found a PopSci article about the robot, but it's not very long. Still, he got "Robot of the Week", which I guess counts for something. Besides that, I don't see anything else to help establish notability. If someone else can find Indian sources, then that will do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 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 merge to Crystal Palace National Sports Centre. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace Park (stadium)[edit]

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

Information is out of date, the plans were shelved and will not ever happen. This should be a footnote on the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre page. Few reliable sources. Claims it will be built by date X which is not true. SheffGruff (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with/to Crystal Palace National Sports Centre. Giant Snowman 14:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Crystal Palace National Sports Centre. This redevelopment may happen, but for the moment this fails WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Still appears to be a pipedream to a greater or lesser extent. Best to merge until more concrete coverage is available. Fenix down (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fleischbutter[edit]

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

Fleischbutter is completely unknown in Germany. Most of the References refer to other products. Fleischbutter is as German as the Christmas Pickle. Rôtkæppchen68 19:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1. The article is based on a unique recipe to be found on a few websites collecting recipes. The name Fleischbutter was probably invented by the original contributor. No German dictionary lists the term, neither do the printed German cookbooks I know of. This is a clear case of OR and should be speedily deleted. --Jossi (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion was originally started here: de:Wikipedia:Auskunft#Fleischbutter. --Rôtkæppchen68 00:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unknown in germany, does only appear on very few websites and is obscure even on those. 212.90.151.90 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per de:wikipedia:Auskunft/Archiv/2013/Woche_45#Fleischbutter, either extremely obscure or original research. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Lox. v/r - T P 02:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D-Block Records[edit]

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

Record label fails WP:GNG, the notability is not inherited from the founders. The label has not released any albums by artists outside of the founders (The LOX). Not to mention the entire article is unsourced. STATic message me! 18:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Lox. Alex^{discussion ★} 20:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lox - Not really much to merge given that it seems their subsidiaries D-Block Europe and D-Block Latino haven't garned much substance and news coverage. My first Google News search found results as did my second and third. However, the record label is better known as the founders' label, using it for their work aside from one now-former client, J-Hood, who also received some news coverage for being signed to this record label but not significant. I don't quite understand "The Next Generation" sentence in the label's Wikipedia article but I found this which seems like a compilation album. Aside from that, there's really not much for an article even to improve it from its current status. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with a redirect, if the article was half decent I would support a merge, but there is really nothing significant and sourced for that matter, to merge.STATic message me! 00:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Lox per SwisterTwister. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q Mobile[edit]

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

The article lacks self consistency regarding the company, something indicating that it is bizarre already. The references are not all they are suggested to be either. One leads to a Q Mobile phones for sale site. Delete as disguised advertising and salt as repeatedly recreated. With the current paid editing scandal, is this an article that falls under that category? Fiddle Faddle 18:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the article just needs editing thats all and it should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaid kapoor (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC) — Junaid kapoor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple reliable sources making it a notable subject U BS 10:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article was recently speedied as A7 and G11, but I don't see it applicable any more. Besides the news source in the article I find some other [2], [3], [4] that are sufficient to establish notability per WP:CORP. -- SMS ^Talk 04:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite notable, common and popular mobile phone company in the country. Should be kept. Fai zan 15:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Definitely Notable. The article is not well written but that doest not warrant a deletion.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above editor is a sockpuppeteer and paid editor. [5] It is unclear whether he has WP:COI on this article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he broke the rules in the past (and I blocked him for doing so). But following him around and leaving disclaimers after his edits is somewhat problematic, particularly if you don't have any evidence that he is currently breaking the rules. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

André Tete[edit]

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

On notability grounds - no top tier fights or championships Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears he technically meets WP:NMMA since he fought for Rings Holland (which was top tier back then), although common sense says it's hard to say he's very notable with 2 lifetime wins in MMA. The article gives, and I could find, no good reliable sources supporting the claims of him being a notable boxer or kickboxer with many international titles and long winning streaks. This looks like a good candidate for WP:COMMONSENSE to override a technical meeting of a notability criteria since he seems to lack the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I agree with Papaursa's comment about using common sense for someone who only won 2 fights. Other claims are completely unsupported.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep via his kickboxing record.Tete is more known for being a kickboxer than a MMA fighter,ive personally seen many of tete's kickboxing matches on tv he fought top kickboxers such as Clyde van Dams and Errol Parris,play it safe on this one because of his kickboxing record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronkoeman44 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not obtained by who he fought (that's WP:NOTINHERITED). The article has no independent sources so WP:GNG is not met. Do you have sources that show he meets WP:KICK? If so, please add them to the article. This isn't about "playing it safe", it's about meeting WP notability criteria. The burden of proof is on those who claim a topic is notable. Papaursa (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence can be given showing he meets WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 17:21, 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. v/r - T P 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Gambaryan[edit]

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

On notability grounds - no top their fights Peter Rehse (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No top tier fights and no significant coverage so he fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:33, 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. v/r - T P 02:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mamed Khalidov[edit]

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

On notability grounds - no top their fights Peter Rehse (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has three top tier fights all in World Victory Road. Into the Rift (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My bad, you are right - I missed World Victory Road in the list. I would withdraw but if we let it run its course than it is protected.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NMMA. I'm just making this an obvious decision. Papaursa (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No offense to the nominator, but how are these users nominating these articles not noticing these 3 required top tier fights...its right there plain as day and i notice them in a matter of seconds within me briefly looking over said article.Kind of a waste of time to take the time to nominate it, to be honest it probably takes less time to thoroughly inspect the fight record versus the time it takes to nominate an article for deletion. Sepulwiki (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its more like forgetting that the now defunct World Victory Road was top tier.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko Rupponen[edit]

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

On notability grounds - no top their fights purely a local fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Most of the sources either are broken links or don't mention him so there's no support there for WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Into the Rift (talk) 23:44, 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 that the nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 23:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Nycum[edit]

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

not even a stub of a biography - just a mention of one thing she wrote 25 years ago Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started this article today during a training course. The subject was taken from a gender gap list as this was the point of the training - to encourage women to become more involved here. The nomination was made 65 minutes after the article was created and so provides a good illustration of the way that new users get bitten. I had to rush home to attend to a leaky roof but have now spent a bit more time expanding the topic further. I didn't know much about the subject when I started but she appears to have be a fairly prominent pioneer in the field of computer law. This topic is quite relevant to Wikipedia and so we should allow more time for article development and expansion, as laid out in our editing policy. Andrew Davidson (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been expanded considerably since it was nominated. Nycum is a pioneering computer law scholar and was active in the field's early days, writing, for one, the first study to document and define computer crime. Many sources that could be used to further expand the article can be found at Google Scholar, books, and news; the sources demonstrate that Nycum easily passes WP:BIO through substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 22:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree with the others. A casual search on Google News turns up countless articles. Skimming through some of them, I see evidence that she is constantly referred to as an expert, and it should be very easy to create an article on her. The article itself still relies on many primary sources, but it will fill out eventually. I would suggest that Eggishorn withdraw this nomination, as it seems this nomination was premature. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination for reasons given above. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:10, 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. v/r - T P 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Baird (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Only ever had one role. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:GNG. No notability whatsoever. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously non-notable, and fails WP:NACTOR. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 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 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odysseytravels[edit]

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

Apparent lack of notability despite the claims about being the world's largest single-brand travel franchise company. I find no substantive information in reliable sources via Google, which provides fewer than 80 hits for "Odyssey Tours and Travels". The one reference given in the article is from a post-your-own press release website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources, doesn't meet WP:ORG. Alex^{discussion ★} 20:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles on this firm have previously been speedy-deleted under variant names: [6], [7]. As to the current version, the material about Uniglobe is effectively irrelevant to this article; which leaves the firm itself and only the article claim to being the largest in its field in India lifts it over CSD A7. But it is a claim that does not even appear to be confirmed by their own website and even if it was verified it would be debatable whether it amounted to notability. AllyD (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I see out there are a bunch of user-produced reviews and no GNews hits that would suggest anywhere near a WP:CORPDEPTH pass. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 09:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we need to be careful with organisations based in the Indian sub-continent to avoid systemic bias. However, an international travel company would expect to have some coverage in English and in this case where there simply seem to be no sources around of the necessary quality it is a clear failure of WP:ORG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Heckler & Koch G3. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heckler & Koch HK32[edit]

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

Lacking in content and notablity Zackmann08 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:32, 2 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heckler & Koch G3 of which it is a variant. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Heckler & Koch G3. I agree with Colapeninsula. Does not seem to get any significant coverage by reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Heckler & Koch G3. Works for me. I agree as well. --Zackmann08 (talk) 02:47, 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 merge to Timbre. v/r - T P 02:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tristimulus timbre model[edit]

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

Questionable mathematics that do not show notability, usage or relevancy to a broader usage as to harmonics. It lacks context and if it can be used, should be merged to the harmonics page - but its stand alone or credibility is shaky. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not that I really understand what this article is about, but the article on which it is based was cited 138 times according to Google Scholar—is that significant? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that this particular timbre model (an important concept in psychoacoustics, apparently) inspired a new design of synthesizer.[8] הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I work in the research field where this kind of thing is relevant. As far as I know, not many people use these tristimulus values to represent timbre or harmonics, so I'd agree that there's no particular need for a standalone article. I don't feel particularly strongly either way. I created the article, a few years back, and a couple of systems provided tristimulus as an option so it seemed current, but now I'd say it's not particularly pertinent. --mcld (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the explanation. The fact it is a method and is used helps establish its need for Wikipedia, but I am concerned that as a stand alone article it will do next to nothing. Would you agree that the harmonics or any other page would be a suitable place to include such a short segment? I much rather keep this than delete it, but I know not where it can or should go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the section Timbre#Harmonics. GScholar produces 10 hits for "Tristimulus timbre" and among those papers are only a small number of researchers. There don't seem to be enough in-depth independent sources to pass notability thresholds. But the model is real and has been used as a convenient low-dimensional representation of the harmonic aspects of a timbre, as in SoniMime. Per WP:PRESERVE, we prefer to preserve verifiable information through merging rather than deletion. I'd recommend merging a short description and a ref verifying to Timbre#Harmonics, which seems the best target given that we have no general article on timbre theory or modeling. --Mark viking (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Timbre: per Mark's reasoning. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 21:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City of Adelaide Pipe Band[edit]

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

Lack of independent citations to prove notability. Cannot find history on official site - likely unverifiable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their official website says "The band has attained 2 Australian Pipe Band Championships, 4 Victorian Pipe Band Championships, and 19 South Australian Pipe Band Championships." Are any of those awards notable? Dream Focus 13:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say yes, given that there is regular press coverage of the event, and it appears to be the premier national music competition in Australia for pipe bands. :) Certainly their win garnered coverage in the media, so I don;t think it is a trivial award. - Bilby (talk) 04:17, 12 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. There's on-line coverage of the group's activities over time and likely more off-line. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bilby makes a good point. The awards are sufficient to make them notable. Dream Focus 09:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Redirection can be discussed on the article talk page. v/r - T P 21:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sabalom Glitz[edit]

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

Minor recurring character from the 1980s incarnation of the BBC serial Doctor Who. Fails the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless nomination, should be discussed on the article talk page or boldly merged with e.g. List of Doctor Who supporting characters if it is believed insufficiently notable for own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim! (talk • contribs) 07:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per ~~the anonymous~~ Tim!'s suggestion above - Go to the talk page & discuss it.......

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, discuss, maybe redir. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Tim! Obvious outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:08, 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John de Pont[edit]

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

Not notable. Award is not major. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. One of a glut of 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) 07:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to have in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, as per the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Keep It was perhaps not noticed that he is a member of the Royal Scoeity of New Zealand. By our usual standards, that is unquestionable notability DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confusing member with fellow. Membership is a question of paying a fee (and maybe an ethics signature). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. "You don’t need to be working (or have worked) in science, technology or humanities to become a Member – anyone can become a Member"[9] - WP:SCHOLAR refers to "elected" membership or fellowship. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:44, 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sourcing is limited to primary sources (i.e., his works) and Who's Who. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:12, 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hipertext.net[edit]

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

Online journal, not indexed in any selective dayabases. Article creator de-PRODded and added several "independent sources". None of these is actually about the journal, these are simply articles, blogs, and a dissertation, which have cited an article published in this journal. Does not pass WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:47, 2 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Roots of Tommy[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. PROD was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cf. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:36, 2 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 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 The Angry Video Game Nerd. v/r - T P 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF: " films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". AVGN is notable, some other names in the film are notable, but literally 100% of the sourcing is WP:PRIMARY. I could find absolutely zero secondary sourcing, or evidence that the film has yet achieved notability on its own. Maybe once things are actually wrapped up and it gets closer to release, but so far, I'm finding nothing reliable about it.

ETA: Last AFD closed in 2011 with consensus to redirect to the AVGN's main article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Angry Video Game Nerd. While I did find some secondary sources from places like Kotaku[10] and GameInformer[11], I discounted them as establishing notability because they're really small and basically just say "AVGN is making a movie, and it's coming soon!" When it releases it'll probably be notable, though. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect again to The Angry Video Game Nerd#Film. While the article in 2011 was indeed TOO SOON, the topic of this film-in-progress is just begining to receive some coverage, but not enough to be an "exception' to guideline. Per WP:NFF we can allow undeletion/recreation when we have confirmation of filming completion and release date. Okay also with Incubation for a few months. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubation or Redirect, but just don't delete it. The article doesn't need to be canned, it just needs more work. Besides, if you were going to delete it it should have been done months ago, because now it is on the verge of release it's soon going to become far more notable. Little Jimmy (talk) 11:35, 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. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saphan Khwai BTS Station[edit]

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

I don't think there is enough evidence of WP:Notability for this single station to warrant its inclusion as a stand-alone article. I previously redirected individual BTS station articles to the articles for their respective lines, but they were restored by Mr.BuriramCN. (I haven't been able to engage in discussion with him.) I'm testing the water with this AfD, and may nominate the other related articles later. Paul_012 (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be an actual station as opposed to just a tram stop. We generally keep all articles on stations, including urban rapid transit stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of such precedence. If that is the case perhaps it could be mentioned at WP:RAILOUTCOMES and/or WP:STATION?--Paul_012 (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Mackensen (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Train stations are inherently notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please clarify the statement? What makes something "inherently notable" according to Wikipedia policy? WP:N only says that "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists." --Paul_012 (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus made on prior AfDs has determined that train stations, no matter what size or in what country, are notable as long as sources confirm it exists (or existed for that matter). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As has been mentioned, train stations are considered to be notable per WP:OUTCOMES if WP:V is satisfied, as part of the Wikipedia's role as a gazzeteer under the Five Pillars. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 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. Will userfy on request v/r - T P 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgia Simonato[edit]

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

This article is about a women's footballer that hasn't represented the national team, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. There are some members of the women's football task force who believe that representing their country at youth international level or appearing in the UEFA Women's Champions League also confer notability, but this individual has not done any of those. The most important, however, is that the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources, which means it fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Unless article can be expanded with references to meet WP:GNG, userfy it. WP:FPL is incomplete and currently only contains two active women's professional leagues out of numerous top-tier leagues throughout the world so is pretty much irrelevant with regard to articles about women's professional footballers.Hmlarson (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Sputnik. FPL comment from @Hmlarson: is incorrect, this list and the consensus arising from it revolve around fully professional leagues being the required benchmark, not simply players or individual clubs being professional. Additionally whether it is incomplete or not, it reflects the current consensus. That consensus may change, but this is not the forum in which to do so. It is easy enough to resurrect stubs like this should consensus change. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid it's you who is incorrect. By you I mean the four or five editors who police these discussions by following about GiantSnowman parroting "fail NFOOTBALL, fail GNG". If this article fails GNG, which I think it might, it should be deleted on that basis. The disingenuous nonsense you guys have created at WP:FPL is totally irrelevant to female players, thankfully. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing incorrect about my statement. See WP:FPL to verify. For a list of top-tier women's leagues around the globe, see the main league competitions column here: Women's association football around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSPORTS having not appeared in a fully professional league or represented her country in a senior international match. No evidence available that she has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - therefore fails WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. C 679 10:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete and salt as unambiguous advertising. (To be explicit: I'm marking this as closed because it's already been speedy-deleted; the deletion was performed by Jimfbleak.) —me_and 17:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Mirror Sync[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline after good-faith search for sources. —me_and 11:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly relevant, this page has previously been speedy-deleted as unambiguous advertising and unambiguous copyright infringement.[12] I don't think either of those apply this time. —me_and 11:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is article about a software. There is nothing about the company.

"Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvkozyrev (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Mvkozyrev (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 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. v/r - T P 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emcee T[edit]

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

I do not understand why this artist has his own Wikipedia page. I'm from the same town he is from, and I have never heard of him (except for a search of Asian-American hip hop artists on Wikipedia). Other than that, he's not notable at all and there's only a few videos of his music on YouTube that have very few views. No disrespect to him, but he is not notable at all. Cyanidethistles (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is "gaining popularity..." - hmm. I cannot find any evidence that this guy meets WP:GNG or the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 13:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 02:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if he is "gaining popularity" then his notability can b revisited in the future, However, for now, he fails WP:MUSICBIO and separately WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Perlis FA season[edit]

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

Delete per consensus at this recent AfD, which established that season articles should follow the same notability guidelines as the players, i.e. fully professional leagues only. C 679 09:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 09:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages under the same criteria:

C 679 09:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per nom and previous consensus. Giant Snowman 10:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk - Hi C. I wonder why you nominated 2013 Penang FA season for deletion. The article is full of information based on events happen to Penang Football Association in 2013. This below articles completely blank compared to 2013 Penang FA season but why it's still here? I completely disagree with your action :

2001 Kelantan FA season

2002 Kelantan FA season

2003 Kelantan FA season

2004 Kelantan FA season

2005 Kelantan FA season

2005-06 Kelantan FA season

2006-07 Kelantan FA season

2007-08 Kelantan FA season

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TorresChelsea96 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per the rationale above, because it relates to a season in a non-fully professional league. I haven't looked at the other articles you linked but other stuff exists. C 679 11:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - WP:NSEASONS is quite clear that season articles should only be for clubs in top professional leagues. There is no consensus that the Malaysian Premier League is fully professional and so the articles should go. It would also appear that the Kelantan articles should also be deleted under the same rationale. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 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. Secret ^account 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pingler.com[edit]

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

A seven-employee firm. I don;t see how it can possibly be notable. , and the article provides no evidence to show otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7 and/or WP:G11. All the sources are primary, listings, or blogs. A very small organisation purporting to be an SEO company, ostensibly trying do do their own SEO by using Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG - this is what we get from too many paid editors. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 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. v/r - T P 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gascoigne Leather Furniture[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: recreation of a previously deleted article. Although this makes claims to importance, no independent 3rd party sources have been suppled that assert notability per WP:ORG. Notability is not inherited from notable customers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't notice any qualifying sources on my first run-through when the article was created, but now I found two, in the New Zealand Herald and the Melville Times. Is two a sufficient number? Yes, having famous people among your customers doesn't confer notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the Melville times is local coverage and looks a bit advertorial, it even gives the company's phone number. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many more references are needed for it to be considered notable?Lucy4962 (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC) — Lucy4962 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's not a question of the number of references. It depends on the depth of coverage in the references and whether the sources are reliable or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to clarify, it wouldn't be a question of how many more because right now there aren't any references to independent reliable sources. The company's own website isn't an independent source, and the other two references given are not sources because the company isn't mentioned at either location. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone's added a bunch of fresh references. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources:

Museum Not reliable. Blog.

Comment - this is not a 'blog' but an extract from the Welcome Wall project prepared by the Western Australian State Government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

[13] Not reliable. Blog.

Comment - this is a copy of an article by the Australian Associated Press - Australia's national news agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

Agree with Dan arndt unless there's a reason to think the blog invents articles and attributes them to the AAP. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BN Not relevant. Does not add to notability.

Comment - it is relevant to the issue that the facility was subject to a major fire - which alomost resulted in the closure of the business — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

Agree with Dan arndt The site's down for maintenance at the moment but what I recall seeing last night when I looked at it was that the write chose Gascoigne as an example to illustrate the point of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gascoigne website primary source
[$File/19910514_Assembly.pdf transcript of a day's business in parliament. How much of this pdf do we need to read to find a fleeting mention?]

Comment - if you read the reference citation correctly it indicates the exact page - which indicates that the Minister Gordon Hill considers Gascoigne Furniture to be a significant exporter of Western Australian furniture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

BN extremely fleeting mention

Comment - clearly identifies that Gascoiyne Furtniture is the largest manufacturer of Chesterfield leather lounges in the Southern Hemisphere and exports to 14 countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

Mildly agree with Dan arndt Again, the BN site is down for maintenance and I didn't check it out before, but this seems significant to me. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melville local news blog

Comment - a local newspaper is not a blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

The Age possible reliable source

Comment - The Age newspaper is a reputable independent source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

The New Zealand Herald possibly reliable. Not in-depth coverage.

Comment - reinforces the earlier reference that Gascoiyne Furtniture supplied furniture to Prince Charles from another reputable independent source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

Agree with Dan arndt on this one, this was a verification source, not a notability source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Henry transcript of an after dinner speech by a local MP. Very fleeting mention.

Comment - this is an extract from the Hansard Report from the Western Australian State Parliment - not a transcript of an after dinner speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

This looks like the typical result of scouring the internet for anything that contains the word Gascoigne and pasting it to the article. I'll leave it to the community to decide if these sources add to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Kudpung's analysis. the sources are very weak and not indepth or reliable. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about if i add photos from the company's relationship with Lady Diana and John Howard? I tried to upload when the article was created but was told the account wasn't old enough etc? Lucy4962 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not valid, unfortunately. As previously mentioned, notability is not inherited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy4962, do you have a connection to the company? LibStar (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy, the issue being discussed here is the notability of the company much more than the verifiability of the claims. Even photos of Kim Gascoigne sharing a pizza with Lady Diana and John Howard at a table set up in front of the company's headquarters wouldn't help with the notability question. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep based on my comments above. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company is one of the largest furniture companies in Western Australia, with significant international exports around the world. It is a company that is notable for its quality chesterfield leather lounges, with significant clientele. Dan arndt (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification User:Dan arndt, FYI, factors taken into consideration in assessing notability for a company don't include the quality of its goods, the fame of its customers, or whether it's one of the largest manufacturers of a particular type of product in a particular political subdivision. Factors that are taken into consideration all have to do with whether the topic has attracted note as shown through significant coverage in independent reliable source. The factors you mention may have led to such significant coverage having occurred, in which case the article is includable on account of that coverage, but those factors don't directly establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell: "verifiability, not truth" is the basic deciding factor for notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed which is why the references I have added are all from independently verifable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yrs, Dan, but not even all verifiable sources are ones that confer notability. They must have in-depth coverage, and notability is not inherited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that I believe Gascoigne Furniture has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - therefore confering notability. Significant coverage does mean that it has to be the main topic of the source material. Dan arndt (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you meant "does not mean", yes? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the grammar correction, I did mean 'does not mean' Dan arndt (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SpiderScribe[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails WP:GNG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. It is a clearly promotional written by Paid Editor socking across accounts Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:advert This is the sort of article that clearly is advertising, also WP:N Retartist (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is non-notable and clearly promotional. Novusuna ^talk 00:25, 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 speedy deleted by User:Menchi per CSD G7, "The author/creator has blanked own page." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken E. Nwadike, Jr.[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. The closest to a supportable claim of notability in this WP:AUTOBIO is the NAIA All-American Athlete, but it turns out that was an award for the entire relay team of which he was a member, and that doesn't seem to meet WP:NCOLLATH standards. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Fortunato[edit]

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

No notability separate from the work of fiction this hails from. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:51, 8 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} 03:51, 8 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} 03:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the WP:GNG. Does not receive significant coverage by independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified Wikia.[14] Please give them time to read the message and copy it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:11, 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 21:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Keinszig[edit]

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

Notability is not established. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:18, 8 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} 03:18, 8 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} 03:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gets trivial mentions throughout several articles and books, but there's no evidence that significant coverage exists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 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 21:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Zaluchi[edit]

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

Utterly fails WP:GNG. Not a hugely important character, sources that exist are just plot recaps. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:29, 8 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} 02:30, 8 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} 02:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified Wikia.[15] Please give them time to read the message and copy it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article they already have is much better than this one (for a Wikia). I doubt there is much to copy. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:31, 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 redirect to Child's Play (film series). v/r - T P 21:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Barclay[edit]

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

Unremarkable fictional character, fails WP:GNG. Suggest that List of Child's Play characters be created. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:27, 8 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} 02:27, 8 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} 02:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was looking at this article the other day and was kind of surprised to see that this character hasn't attracted really any critical attention beyond noting his presence in the franchise. I don't believe a character list is necessary since without reliable sources that discuss the individual characters such a list would only be a rehash of the films' plots. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Child's Play (film series) or delete. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage, either. I guess nobody remembers the little kid from the films when Chucky is so popular. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:47, 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. Wifione ^Message 04:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeprint Verification[edit]

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

May not meet WP:NSOFT.

Note, article was contributed by someone whose username is the same as the company's name, but has been rewritten by me. —rybec 02:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, It does follow WP:NSOFT, it is being tried as an alternative to passports.JDgeek1729 (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JDgeek1729's version of the article was about iris recognition, which is is a widely-used technique that is distinct from Eyeprint Verification. As explained in the original version of the article, the latter is "exclusive" to one company, Eyeverify, and is based on scanning the whites of the eyes, not the irises. —rybec 03:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now, likely WP:TOOSOON. I will admit to being somewhat biased against the article in any form because of the bad taste left in my mouth by the original version. It will be a few weeks or months before I'm neutral towards this topic. The closing administrator should take my lack of objectivity into account. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs to be expanded on and have more sources, otherwise delete.TomKoenig (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon. Policy is to not include articles on speculation only. Once something is announced and covered by enough press to be notable, then perhaps try again. Could userify in the meanwhile. W Nowicki (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable software, per WP:SPECULATION and WP:TOOSOON. Alex^{discussion ★} 20:32, 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 21:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage share of operating systems[edit]

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

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

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

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

WP:NOT Information is by definition constantly out of date. Not an encyclopedic topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might make sense to move info to pages on individual OSes/topics - e.g. it's reasonable in Windows 7 to discuss its comparable market share; same for Android, etc. But I think historical data on OS share would be an encyclopedic topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even when not up to the minute current, the article can show long term trends, and changes over history. The topic is by itself covered well enough to have its own article, and is an important aspect of our coverage of the topic of operating systems. — daranz [ t ] 14:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article seems much more up to date and better sourced than average in this project, although that is not sufficient reason by itself. As above, historical data seems fine, and the OS-specific articles seem to get unwieldy pretty quickly. Although with the divergence in platforms over the past few years, there is a bit of subject creep in this one. Should give benefit of the doubt to keep. W Nowicki (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is the least out of date for Web clients and Summary (I maintained it for years each month). I agree that we should complete with historical data and not only *spot* data. Should give benefit of the doubt to keep. 20:44, 8 November 2013 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.24.147 (talk)
Keep. Even if the article is a bit heavy on statistics and somewhat out-of-date, it can still be fixed. This is a common topic in tech journals, and it would be easy to write an article that went more in-depth. I hate make an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, but even out-of-date statistics with limited commentary is pretty useful. At the very least, I think the usage stats should probably be merged into the appropriate articles (Linux, Microsoft Windows, OS X, etc). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Article is inherently too close to the topic. Wikipedia was never intended to be a news site always reporting the latest statistics Useerup (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it can be re-written to incorporate both long term trends and the most recent data it may prove useful and of interest, at the moment it looks as though large parts are just whatever was the most up-to-date info available at the time, and is now somewhat out of date. I would volunteer to comprehensively re-structure it myself, but I have not been able to find sufficient reliable statistics, not knowing where to look. Alternatively, if it is too small and unecyclopaedic a topic to warrant its own article, perhaps a section within Operating System? 213.104.128.16 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Intersting and useful! --91.229.57.240 (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All Wikipedia articles are potentially out of date - but not nearly as badly so as in a print encyclopedia. There are many people who work together keeping this information as clear and as up to date as possible. As time goes by, the article becomes more interesting and encyclopedic as older information is condensed and summarised to make way for new, developing a background level that provides more richness and de[pth for the reader. --Nigelj (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helpful information, lots of of sources - no reason for deletion. 92.225.88.125 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Kind of withdrawn by nominator. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary School District[edit]

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

Elementary schools are rarely notable, and the districts which they are a part of are actually less notable, as they are just an office for coordination of the various schools. not every govt org gets an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I agree with nominator's assessment of the lack of notability of run-of-the-mill primary schools, l disagree regarding school districts. As the linked Google News archive search shows, these are elected bodies, often with hotly contested races, and they also often place multi-million dollar bond measures on the ballot, often highly controversial. Elementary school and middle school articles are often redirected to school district articles, so these articles help with Wikipedia's function as a gazeteer, which is mentioned specifically in the Five Pillars, our founding principles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Governments are inherently notable. In the US, school districts are governments and this district has been included in the most recent US Census of Governments (2012). This government will be mentioned in various budgets, educational studies, comparative analyses, and real estate analyses just like every other school district in the US. The baseline coverage of all school districts in the US exceeds Wikipedia notability standards. That erroneous assertions of government non-notability keep coming up seems to be showing a weakness in the guidelines. TMLutas (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . This does not fall within our practice of redirecting nn primary and middle schools. Besides which, we need somewhere to redirect them to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these are effectively local government bodies that raise large sums of money. Positions are elected and school districts have a high community profile. These articles also are a convenient repository for information about their constituent schools which, if middle or elementary are likely separately nn. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every school district in the U.S. is encyclopedic, as is every public school. WP:5 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of ... gazetteers."--Hjal (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - School district articles are the target for redirects when the inevitable (horrible) elementary school articles pop up. While no one of these schools is notable under our established consensus at AfD, the collective entity is. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close as keep from nominator. i wasnt really sure what to do with elementary/middle school DISTRICTS, but it seems like they are keepers, esp. to redirect school articles to. I had thought only school districts which included high schools made the cut, but the snow consensus is i was wrong. im cool with that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Somebody please close this now as speedy keep. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 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. Secret ^account 18:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember The 13th Hoax[edit]

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

advertising through the backdoor The Banner talk 01:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 01:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. This article does not violate any Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines. Since this article has very recently been approved, Perhaps it needs more time to develop. Juiceentertainment (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC) — Juiceentertainment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well... a promotional article can always be cleaned up. I'll go through and remove the worst of the promotional prose so we can judge it on whether or not it passes notability guidelines. As far as an article passing AfC, I'll have to warn you Juice that this isn't always a guarantee of passing notability guidelines. It's a little bit of a sore subject on Wikipedia that a lot of articles can pass AfC but not pass the main guidelines for notability. There does seem to be an assertion of notability, but the bigger problem here seems to be a depth of coverage since almost all of the coverage is from a very short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfy. This did get some coverage, yes, but overall the coverage is fairly light. It spans a very brief point in time and much of the article coverage is brief in nature. A lot of it just repeats the same thing over and over again, which doesn't really give a depth of coverage regardless of how many brief articles you have. For comparison's sake, I'll hold up the AfD for the Ikea Monkey, something which easily received about 2-3 times the coverage that this website has, yet it didn't pass AfD either. The coverage just isn't here. I have no problem with someone userfying this for the time being, but I honestly doubt that this will gain any further coverage. What we have on the article currently seems to be the extent of the coverage in reliable sources and that's really only from a period of about 7 days. The internet seems to have largely ignored this website for the most part. It got attention and some views, but it's nowhere near as big as it'd need to be to really pass WP:GNG. I'd suggest a merge somewhere, but I don't really know any specific article that would really be appropriate. Viral marketing should really only have mentions that are overwhelmingly notable (ie, an article) and I'm a little leery about automatically adding every internet thing to List of Internet phenomena, as that turns it into an unwieldy and unmanageable list. It's not really an internet meme, so it can't be added to that list either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it was a PR stunt for music artist Beeki Vendi, it might be better to rename. Or userfy till he becomes notable if the coverage about him is insufficient. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Vendi is a relatively new performer, so there isn't enough out there for an article on him at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have good deal of source coverage, — Cirt (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although there seems to be coverage, I don't think that it is encyclopedic and fails notability guidelines. It is a one off, having no lasting effect gag to make some money that is pretty insignificant.- Pmedema (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No lasting significance; one-off stunt with ordinary coverage. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BFD. Carrite (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, The singer in the article Beeki Vendi, I did some research and found that he went under a different stage name "Yasha Swag" and he has news coverage. If you search "Yasha Swag" it's the same person who sings Purple Ninja...

http://popdust.com/2012/03/14/yasha-swag-go-go-go-viral-video/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/pickles-yasha-swag-cheating-youtube-views/ http://now.msn.com/will-yasha-swag-become-this-year%E2%80%99s-rebecca-black http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-12-07/okay-what-is-this-yasha-swag-pickles-video-all-about/ http://newmediarockstars.com/2012/12/internet-nonsense-yasha-swags-pickles-is-the-best-and-also-the-worst/ http://news.softpedia.com/news/Viral-of-the-Day-Yasha-Swag-Pickles-313398.shtml http://planet1051.com/yasha-swags-pickles-video-has-over-8-million-views-in-7-days-why-video/ http://entertainment.ie/wtf/Forget-Ultan-Sherry-say-hello-to-Yasha-Swag/155488.htm http://worldofwonder.net/terrible-viral-video-of-the-day-yasha-swags-pickles/ http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/beta-digital-column-29698038.html

It looks like he botted on his old videos but this time around he hoaxed the nasa website to get viral attention once again. I don't know if you guys think this is significant enough to add as an article? Or link it somehow with Remember The 13th?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 | 01:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Scott-Taggart[edit]

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

Essentially unreferenced, no real notability ES &L 01:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple Google search returns quite a large number of hits, plus also two book mentions. The subject seems to be of historical value, as evidenced if nothing else on the single link provided in the article. Here is his bio entry/authority control in the Library of Congress. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes he doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER but WP:SOLDIER is WP:BOLLOCKS anyway. OBE, MC, entry in Who's Who: [16], crashed his plane into the sea on Christmas Eve 1929 (as reported in the Times)... Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have only just undeleted this poor chap. I'll be referencing and updating the article progressively over the next couple of weeks (I have to dig out the published articles on him)+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coherers (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Asa Briggs and Brian Hennesey thought him notable, that should be enough for the rest of us. WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant here - that is really for career soldiers and those whose only claim to notability is in the fighting arm; his notability is as a technical expert in which capacity he served in the forces for part of his career, which his entirely different. --AJHingston (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article needs wikifying and more detail. I would like to read more about "father of the transistor radio". If true, that alone would make him notable; similarly oversight of radar in Britain in WWII.

Sorry forgot to sign this. Peterkingiron (talk)

Keep -- (A. Carty (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
{{trout}} nominator and keep. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Hennesy and Brigs sources strongly suggest notability though they are not in depth and and only two. The article contained some serious WP:PUFF calling him a "father of wireless and radio" which no source even comes close to saying, and even if one source did it would not be enough to establish such a massive claim putting him alongside Marconi. In fact the sources seem to portray him as an authority in Britain on the "wireless valve" (whatever that is) and for his journalism work. The article should reflect what the sources say. Contrary to the wet trout, I think the nom was right to look at this one askew considering the condition it was in at the time and the incredulous claim "one of the fathers of wireless and transitor radios" completely unsourced. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and continue to fix it. An old aphorism goes, "AfD is not for cleanup." Bearian (talk) 23:07, 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.