Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 September	7 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to The Toasters. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Up[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS with no references or assertion of notability; the recording seems to be a glorified demo tape. WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Toasters. This is obviously a 7-inch single; Giving it a title doesn't make it an album. Strangely there is no 'Singles' section in the Toasters article discography section. Since it clearly exists, listing it there and redirecting would seem appropriate, with a mention of the background to its release if it can be sourced. --Michig (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have now added the singles to the discography in The Toasters article as part of a revamp of that article. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD#G7 as the original author blanked the page. Harryboyles 02:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SERESC[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. reason was "At present we see a $7m budget organisation, not small, not enormous, and we see many primary sources. What we don't see is an assertion of notability which is verified in reliable sources. WIthout these essential items the article, while interesting, should not remain here." Fiddle Faddle 22:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note and Speedy Close that this has become irrelevant. The creating editor has blanked it as having been placed in main namespace in error, but in good faith. It will be speedy deleted. I just have no idea how to close this AfD or I'd close it myself. There should be no prejudice against re-creation in the closure. Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tharizdun[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details and other primary information better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable. 3rd party sources, i have them. Web Warlock (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I find this massive string of AfDs to be of very bad faith. You are taking advantage of the community knowing full well it takes you SECONDS to tag an article but it takes us HOURS or DAYS to do the research. I formally request that you give us the time needed and stop tagging articles. To continue to do so will be considered a bad faith edit and I will revert. Web Warlock (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note2 I added more sources last night. I have a stack of Challenge magazines to go through and some more Pegasus magazines.Web Warlock (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comment sure is blatant WP:AGF violation. Users are free to nominate any number of article they want for AfD, and all of TTN's nominations have been sound and made on articles unlikely to ever be notable, and the closes confirm it so far. They will result in merges anyway, so if sources arise, articles can easily be restored and no harm is done. Your complaint is utterly misplaced: all these articles have existed for YEARS, there was time enough for the D&D wikiproject to research sources. WP:N and WP:NOTPLOT have also been around for years, so don't try to act as if these were suddenly imposed on you by TTN's nomination. The real problem is the unchecked proliferation of D&D fancruft; just because it took SECONDS to create an article, some felt they could just turn this into a D&D fanwiki, but that time is over, so deal with it. Compared to the five fucking thousand total D&D articles, TTN's dozen of nominations are nothing, so feel free to bring all the others up to notability standards instead of threatening good users who merely try to apply the rules that some didn't bother to respect.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, a very large percentage of your five thousand count of pages are actually not articles. If you scroll through that list you will find that many of them are categories, portal pages, project pages, redirects, templates, and over 1000 of the pages are files such as images. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i am not sure that the claim that "The problem is not only bad articles but a proliferation of crufty meta content and copyright materials" actually makes the situation any better.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on both counts. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Fait_accompli.Geni (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fait accompli" is moot when said edits are done within the bound of applicable policies and guidelines, and the opposition acts counter to these. Besides, AfD is a discussion and consensus process, conditions of "fait accompli" are not even met.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read a bit more of that case before making such assertions.Geni (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like the problem hasn't been apparent for years (tons of discussions in the project talk page archives), and I already tried the slow approach years ago. In the end, all the articles that I had merged were brought back with absolutely nothing of value. These articles currently assert absolutely nothing in regard to future potential, so there is really no need to wait. If some obscure text sources are required to establish notability, it can always be brought back, as it's not like any of the outcomes are unreversible. TTN (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - extending good faith to Webwarlock on this one; this guy is the villain of The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and basically 4th edition D&D. BOZ (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is a time for good faith - the years that this sat around waiting for sources- however, at an AfD one is actually required to present the evidence. The links you have provided are primary sources and not sufficient in addressing the WP:GNG threshold. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already looks like there are multiple secondary sources present in the article as it stands now. I echo WebWarlock's concerns of serial AFD'ing: At some point, based on the outcomes of his prior attempts, TTN knows or should know that his attempts at deletion are turning into merge vs. redirect discussions. At some point, we simply cannot continue AGF'ing that he actually believes there is a SNOW chance of any of these actually being deleted. TTN is no stranger to unilateral attempts to merge or delete pop culture content; TTN should know better. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are valid deletion candidates, and it is not my problem if there is no chance of an actual deletion outcome. Dealing with fiction is different than BLP and other topics in the first place. I'm not attempting to force merges with this because I do not really care if these are merged. Very little would end up ported over in the first place with most of these, so deletion is the preferred outcome to keep them from being recreated. TTN (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the assertion of third party sources can only be made on a "first glance" - the sources that are not published by TSR, the company that bought it out Wizards of the Coast or the officially nonindependent licensee Piazo Publishing are authored by Larry Schick non independent source as an authorized writer and creator for D&D materials. While it is possible that the Appelcline book would be a useful source (in fact it might be an amazing source for all kinds of articles if it goes into the details of the game design process), currently there is no evidence that there is any significant coverage of the subject of the article, merely a reprint of publication history.~And then there is a blog by some guy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First run at sources while on my phone. Real research takes time. Care to help? Web Warlock (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TTN, per WP:DEL-REASON, failure to meet notability guidelines is a valid deletion rationale. That consensus in discussions can result in merges rather than outright deletion is out of TTN's hand, and as far as I'm concerned, I only !vote merge for the sake of compromise, the mergeable content being almost exclusively detailed plot summary, I would have no problem to see it gone for good. Finally, Jclemens is reminded to comment on content and not on the contributor, TTN's nominations and the ensuing consensuses are not "unilateral attempts" in any way, and AfD is no place for groundless accusations or badgering an editor for his position on fiction.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that repeated deletion nominations in light of an unbroken string of non-deleted nominations of similar topics becomes a WP:POINT violation at some point--it's pretending that content policies are normative, rather than descriptive. Finally, Folken de Fanel is reminded that past misconduct is absolutely relevant to discussions that turn on whether nominations deserve the continued presumption of good faith, as he knows firsthand as a reformed sockpuppetteer. Jclemens (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pfhffhththt - as if he had taken the unbroken string of merges and redirects and proceeded to merege and redirect that you would not have accused him of also violations. THIS page is for the discussion of whether or not the Tharizdun meets the criteria for a stand alone article. If you issues with his behavior, the ANI is thataway. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, WP:DISAGREEWITHJCLEMENS is not yet a WP:POINT violation. Nothing to add to TRPOD's comment, non-disruptive complaints about user behavior happen on WP:ANI and nowhere else.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. 1980s so there will be fanzine coverage (fanzines have editors who tend to know rather a lot about the topic of the fanzine thus somewhat surprisingly they often pass WP:RS).Geni (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- !) at an AfD vague claims that sources exist are of no value. 2) a fanzine is no more automatically a reliable source than a blog. anyone can take their typewritten proclamations to a copyshop and have a 100 copies run off - that in no way makes them an expert. so if you wish your comment to have any bearing on the outcome, you will need to actually produce some of these fanzines so that their qualification as to whether or not they meet the RS standard can be determined. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have better things do with my time than dig through the relevant university and deposit library archives. The question is it likely that such sources exist. They don't actually have to be produced otherwise we end up with an even worse bias towards things that are online. The reality is fanzines tend towards the editor model because writing all the stuff yourself is hard work.Geni (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but your lack of effort does not impress me into believing you that sources exist, nor do your generalized claims about editorial process show any chance of meeting WP:RS criteria. (a particular fanzine might indeed meet the criteria for WP:RS but it would indeed be a rare duck). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is now coverage in at least four reliable, independent sources, including rather substantial coverage from a source I just added. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please identify which four sources you consider significant reliable and independent. see [1] - the sources all appear to be primary or non reliable or non independent or non significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oerth Journal source I added is significant, reliable, and independent. The Appelcline, Schick, and Tresca sources (5-7) are all reliable and independent. The Tresca source is decent, borderline on substantial. I don't have the other two sources to see how much depth there is to their coverage. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree about Schick. That book deals with many RPGs, not just D&D, and the book was not published by any D&D-related company. Schick is also a founding member of the Academy of Game Critics. He has the proper credentials to be an independent source. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While Schick may have done /other/ things and written about D&D in the context of other games, neither of those in any way eliminate the fact that he was closely involved in D&D for many years and has vested and financial interest in boosting D&D.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with Oerth Journal or Paul Stormberg what should we know that would show that they are reliable and independent ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) http://oerthjournal.blogspot.com/p/oerth-journal-downloads.html Issues of the OJ appear to be hosted on blogspot, i am not going to add a link to the article as it is unclear if the blogsite has copyright permission. but it does have this to say And speaking of "fan-created"... It seems to be a popular misconception that only the work of a few people is published in The Oerth Journal in particular, but that is simply not true. Anyone (emph in original) can submit their writing to The Oerth Journal, or to Canonfire!, and the same can be said of Canonfire! Chronicles once it is launched. And don?t forget Postfest! too, as that is a great avenue for getting one's feet wet. That's how I started off myself. Little did I know what I was getting myself into, but don't let that put you off from doing so! :D" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this page, Oerth Journal is a self-published fanzine with an incestuous relationship with Wizards of the Coast, as many of its editors and contributors became full time WotC employees while they kept on publishing in the fanzine.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~While I agree about these sources being independent~~, merely stating where the character appeared is not significant. We're expecting proper commentary and analysis, not just paraphrasis of primary content. Recanting my previous statement on independence, Lawrence Schick is affiliated as a D&D writer and I share TRPoD's above view on this one. Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Schick: he worked for TSR from 1979–81; I wouldn't consider approximately three years to be many. In fact, he had already left the company before the first product that mentioned Tharizdun was released in 1982. His work at TSR formed a tiny fraction of his career, and the Heroic Worlds book came out a decade after he had left. To be clear, he had nothing to do with the conception or development of the subject of this article.
On Oerth Journal: it had an editorial staff and oversight, which can be found listed in the individual articles. Also, because people who had an interest in the game wrote articles about it there, and then went onto work for the company, that doesn't mean their pre-employment work is no longer reliable or independent. As far as I can tell, no one who wrote for OJ did so at the same time they were writing official works for TSR or WoTC. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Schick - he was only there for 3 years? I thought I remembered seeing his name everywhere on everything for a very long time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most game designers were not employed by the companies they wrote for, but independent contractors. Schick himself is present on Facebook, hangs out in gaming groups, and still discusses the things he's made. It was cool to hear him talk about how he wrote White Plume Mountain as a Spec module and never expected it to be published as-is, which it was. IIRC, it was that module that got him hired. So, as far as games go, then, the author would be non-independent when discussing their own work, but there is also an exception in WP:SELFPUB that covers such sources. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities, as there is no significant coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources, topic doesn't establish notability per WP:GNG. The newly added sources don't even allow the article to comply to WP:NOTPLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major fictional character appearing in multiple works and with plenty of sources to support this. Our editing policy trumps the bickering about guidelines and so there is not case for deletion. Warden (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

determining whether sources actually meet the WP:GNG standards is not "bickering about guidelines". If there if there is not significant content from reliably published independent sources available, then it is impossible to "fix the problems" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:FAILN deletion should be the last resort for unclear notability. The article can be fixed and expanded. 42of8 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"expanded"...With what sources exactly ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice towards redirection Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Anhalt-Mühlingen[edit]

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

Fixing a malformed AfD nomination. The rationale for deletion is below, copied from this AfD page where it was posted in an errant manner (added on as another section). I have no opinion regarding the topic at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Could someone delete this page, because there has never been a principality Anhalt-Mühlingen. The so-called prince Anton Günther lived with his family from 1705 until 1714 in the castle Großmühlingen, but he never became prins of his own (semi-autonomous) principality around the exclave Großmühlingen. The German Wikipedia and the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie do not mention Mühlingen as a principallity, neither as a side=line of the House of Anhalt-Zerbst. Bean 19 (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When researching the various divisions of Anhalt I came across the corresponding article on the Dutch Wikipedia. I couldn't find any sources to back up the existence of Anhalt-Mühlingen as a semi-independent principality. Biographies of it's supposed prince Anton Gunther, don't mention the creation of a cadet branch of Anhalt-Zerbst in 1667. Sir Iain (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources don't confirm what is written in the article. They might barely hint at the mere existence of the Principality -- if those sources are reliable they don't look it -- but nothing like the detailed information concerning when it was founded by whom and why. Whoever wrote the article either made this information up, or neglected to leave the source used in writing the article. Given the problems mentioned above, and the inability to verify anything, going with a delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't think the creator of this article was making anything up, I do think they may have been misinterpreting their sources. The one claimed prince, Anthony Günther, was certainly a prince and he seems to have owned Schloss Mühlingen - but, so far as I can make out, just as a landowner and not as a sovereign prince. In fact, Mühlingen seems to have been part of the County of Barby until the county's division in 1669 between the Elector of Saxony and Karl, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst, Anthony Günther's elder brother. It would probably have been possible, at this time or later, for Karl to have handed sovereignty over Mühlingen to Anthony Günther - but I can find nothing that even hints that this happened. And, by the way, the putative 1667 partition of Anhalt-Zerbst, and thus the existence of the Principality of Anhalt-Dornburg, seem to be subject to much the same doubt. PWilkinson (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anthony Günther, Prince of Anhalt-Mühlingen. For UK peerage articles where the title became extinct with the death of the first peer, we have commonly redirected the article on the peerage to its only holder. Whatever the status of the "principality" there was a prince who bore the title. I do not know enough of German history to know how far this was a mere title and how far the prince actually drew revenues from the area from whihc he took his title. The Principality of Anhalt-Dornburg will be more difficult to deal with since the title was hels by several persons successively. I would suggest that we keep that, becasue it draws together successive holders of the title, like articles on UK peerages. Whether or not the title conferred sovereignty, the title existed and that needs to be explained. If it did not confer sovereignty, the appropriate course is to explain that in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhombus cipher[edit]

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

No references and no indication of notability. There are exactly *two* GHITs, both of which are on Twitter. ^King Jakob _C2 21:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hit the button prior to me. Checked Google Scholar and Books with no hits. Wish there was a speedy category for this. II | (t - c) 21:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperfectlyInformed: (What's the "button prior to me" ? I'm guessing either you have a gadget/script, or you're referring to one of the links in {{Find sources}} ? Ta. ) –Quiddity (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A recently invented cipher which nobody has taken note of as I can find no discussion about it in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Musebox[edit]

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

Music marketing company, doesn't appear notable per WP:CORP. Only non-independent source cited is a single mention in a regional magazine. I don't think this meets WP:RS. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks promo, and has been tagged for notability since 2009. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuelomat–Orpak Arbitration[edit]

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

Zero content. looks to be a placeholder of some sort. TiMike (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) TiMike (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was empty because it had been page-blank vandalized by an IP a couple weeks ago. I've restored what little content was there. Despite that, there's only a couple sentences, no references to indicate notability, and I can find no information about the arbitration to indicate it might be notable. So, delete, even in its restored state. TJRC (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability in the article nor from my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Bucklin[edit]

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

No indication of noteability provided through third party sources. A google search reveals nothing that meets the noteability criteria. Page only contains primary sources and some of them are broken links (one actually links to a Livejournal post). Jtrainor (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well, Jtrainor, that third party sources used to exist and have disappeared from the web due to a falling-out between Mr. Bucklin and the former maintainer of his web presence. Nate Bucklin has been a fixture of the Minnesota fan community for years, and he is a published musician with two albums out on CD and several others on cassette. That is plenty notable enough from a historical-record perspective, even if there aren't any current links to demonstrate it. Wpell (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can such a falling-out possibly affect the existence of third party sources, which are, by definition, not part of Bucklin's web presence? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 29 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A google book search confirms he is activf in SF being thanked a lot in author notes in books but that does not translate into notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A.S.K. M.E.. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Black[edit]

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

Tagged since May 2011. I don't see any sources, so I say he fails to meet GNG. We have an actual, notable "Vic Black" at Vic Black (baseball), so I advise against the merge/redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Vic Black (singer) then Merge to A.S.K. M.E. per tag on article. Vic Black (baseball) can then be moved to Vic Black with a disambig added at the top. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above. Martinp (talk) 17:59, 6 September 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, Jujutacular (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with above. buff bills 7701 20:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ntuthuko Radebe[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - per GS, usual reasons for non-notable footballer. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life In A House[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and probably WP:NFILM (although I can barely understand the article, so it's hard to be sure). Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The best we can suppose is this is simply TOO SOON, but it actually appears to be a hoax article. TKR Productions exists as a UK entity, but not in association with this title. Nor are the purported cast associated. Rumors from Facebook posting are in no way reliable. Delete with gusto. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything about this and for some reason I'm reminded of a similar editor that was adding hoax articles to Wikipedia, User:Amaravathiarun. There's not much to tie the two editors together, but the editing style is slightly similar enough to give me pause. In any case, there's nothing out there to show notability for this film- if it exists, which I think is doubtful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TokyoGirl. I suggest we have a talk with the editor because there has been several articles of similar quality and possible hoaxes created in a short time. While the desire to contribute is commendable it's making a lot more work for us. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politely send him to WP:PRIMER. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Fiddle Faddle 09:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Last comment is 15 days old, with no new comments since relisting. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Action Group (conglomerate)[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turns up nothing but since the company name is so generic searching is difficult. Msnicki (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 16:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am finding it difficult to find sources discusses the parent company, but the subdivisions such as Action Shoes do receive some company so it seems reasonable to preserve this article as the parent subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. From WP:INHERITORG, "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries." Msnicki (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that subsidiaries are notable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that even if its subsidiaries were notable, that would not be enough to make the parent notable. You say some of the subsidiaries are notable but I haven't seen the sources to support that. Msnicki (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the parent corporation and the subsidiaries (those subject redirect to this article). So, the fact that subsidiaries such as Action Shoes are notable does in fact establish notability for this subject, one that includes them. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work that way. The subject of the article is the Action Group and that is the topic that must be shown to be notable here. You are welcome to write articles about the subsidiaries you think are notable and see if they survive their own AfDs (to which, given the sources I've seen so far, I would likely nominate them immediately.) Msnicki (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. If all/major subsidiaries are shown to be notable, a common article for them can exist to avoid stubs spreading all around the wiki. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is Action Group and its subsidiaries. For example, Action Shoes redirects to the article. So the group of companies must be considered and they are notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Business group in various fields with notable products of Action Shoes (Ho ho ho school time, Action ka school time) and Microtek inverters. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added are just routine coverage of their press releases and not suitable to establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu is not theirs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3rd condition of equilibrium[edit]

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

Possible original research? No sources cited, no relevant JSTOR/Google hits, and as far as I can tell, doesn't appear to be actually correct (though that is my own OR). Generally of a quality to warrant a CSD, but doesn't fall under any of the CSD criteria. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 18:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article 3rd condition of equlibrium(sic) has been created, deleted and recreated as a duplicate of this one, as well as Wikipedia:Editor review/nafees888‎. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 18:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already fully covered by mechanical equilibrium. At best a pointless neologism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 | 17:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Norr[edit]

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

Fails criteria WP:CREATIVE under Wikipedia:Notability (people) Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CREATIVE is irrelevant because the subject passes WP:BASIC:

The War in Iraq and why the Media Failed Us
Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories
The Case for Sanctions Against Israel

and many more. Warden (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources in article + sources found by Warden, WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia Mall[edit]

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

While there do seem to be some sources pertaining to the subject, the sources and the article do not propose particular notability. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 17:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Carwile2. Only one source is cited, which comes from the mall's own website. It does not seem to be a very notable either.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are all shopping malls notable by default? Is this one lacking sources as they're mainly in Arabic? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply : I don't think so, I have submitted several shopping mall articles to AfD, and they are not notable by default like schools or sports players. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. It's probably too soon for sources to show up. I'm getting nothing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anjack[edit]

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

Article is, figuratively speaking, overflowing with original research. There is no evidence that this term has usage in reliable sources. Some hits pop up on urban dictionary and YouTube videos, but these obviously can't be used to legitimize this term. Current sources in the article point to news or general discussions of crime and gangster culture without actually using this term. I am concerned this article could be a possible coatrack for racial issues in Singapore. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i feel the article is non biased, and from a fair viewpoint which is what society views anjacks as, in all fairness the wiki pedia page about ah bengs is similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londoncalling111 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you say? Anyway, delete because I couldn't find reliable usage for this term either. In addition, the article starts off talking about the term but then it seems to go into random subject matter with the word thrown in here and there for good measure. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 0 Could not find enough reliable sources covering the term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources, either. Cnilep (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that the term has usage in reliable sources. Cavarrone 06:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Westrop[edit]

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

(Disputed PROD, nominated for PROD by someone else) I have nominated this article for deletion as it does not meet our notability guidelines, nor does it explain the notability of the subject. This fails WP:BASIC in that the subject has not "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject There aren't any reliable secondary sources that discuss this person, particularly any that are independent of the subject. All the sources I can find from a quick google search seem to be from non-independent sources (ie his facebook page or the pages of his organisations.) The subject of the article has not been the subject of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources and is unlikely to be in the foreseeable future. The one article discussing the subject as an individual, here is linked to the organisation that the subject promotes. As it is and after some searching I don't think this article meets the criteria for inclusion at this time. He may do in the future, but not at the moment. Woody (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woody, thanks for notifying me about this, I understand your concern about the notability of the person discussed. Considering someone as "notable" can often be a subjective thing, and so after doing my research about Westrop I'm now convinced there's no doubt this article should stay. First, as written in the article, he's the co-founder and director of the Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy, the organisation Stand for Peace, a former director of the British Israel Coalition and a fellow at Gatestone Institute, and has also written for Algemeiner Journal, International Business Times, and more. Just this by itself is quite extraordinary I'd say, and so if we were to remove his article, thousands of other much less important ones will have to be deleted as well. Regarding your second concern - besides the clearly reliable sources cited in the article, some of which he was the author of - here are some secondary sources, some are completely independent of the subject: him taking a part in a BBC show, him mentioned here and here, a short profile information about him here, here and here, and another interview with him on Sun news - here. He's also the subject of this French article. I'm sure there're plenty more, but need I say more? Shalom11111 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need you say more, well, to be honest, yes. The organisations that you talk about are all organisations that don't yet have WIkipedia articles so to say that he has been a part of them is not indicative of notability. I've been a member of several institutes, it doesn't make me notable. There are many thousands of people who have written articles for online journals but again, that does not indicate notability. I refer back to WP:BASIC in that he has not "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The links you provide do not provide evidence of notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The algemeiner link above just shows that he has worked for that journal, the jpost link is a blog, the nouse link is a candidate statement for a uni election, the atheist Conservative link is one of the subjects blogs/pages and the Sun News youtube video only serves to show that he has been interviewed by a cable news organisation to speak on a subject. You have not shown that he meets WP:BASIC. He is an online blogger and spokesperson for a number of small, non-notable by themselves organisations. As for your opening argument, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, feel free to nominate those articles for deletion. Woody (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your time and the information you provided is much appreciated and helpful. I agree with you to a certain extent about what you said, but still think he's just notable enough to have an article in the English wikipedia. You yourself said that because the organizations he's a part of don't have wikipedia articles, he's not noteworthy to have his own. But he is a fellow at Gatestone Institute - as written and sourced in the article - which does have an article. An activist, founder, editor, appeared in major news network and more, no harm will be made if his article stays. Regarding "other stuff exists", I know that two wrongs don't make a right, but this isn't the case here, briefly look for example at these people I easily and randomly searched and found: Thomas Apple, Ralph Brennan, and Luis Maria Simón. Do they have any secondary and tertiary sources or coverage in third-party reliable sources? Probably not, but Westrop does, even if just a little, he still does. I mean, what else can I say, maybe we need more people's opinions on the matter here. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this isn't a two-way discussion, I look forward to further opinions on this. I was making a generalised statement about the organisations in his article and listed in the various blog posts by the subject. The Gatestone Institute is a one-year-old think-tank, hardly enough to merit claims to notability. You are welcome to try and improve those articles or delete them. I might go over there and look at those articles and sources when I get the chance. When we are dealing with BLPs, particularly those of relatively unknown subjects, we should err on the side of caution. Woody (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that the fact you're the only one proposing and in favor of the deletion of this article isn't coincidental at all and makes a lot of sense. The article has existed for weeks now, was successfully reviewed by an authorized articles checker immediately after, has been edited by about 10 different users and read by probably many more - and not even a single one of them doubted the notability of this man. I saw you edited it and cleaned up some stuff, thanks (by the way, the word "organization" with a "z" is American style, whereas "organisation" with "S" is British English so both ways are correct). In short - Westrop does meet all the requirements needed for a person to have an article, even if some of them are minimal. There's no much more I can say about this anymore.. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Isn't coincidental at all and makes a lot of sense"? I don't follow your logic, what are you implying? I can't speak for other editors but they may have glanced at the article, saw a few links but didn't realise that most of those links were blog or links to the organisation of the subject. I reiterate that this fails WP:BASIC. This AFD hasn't been open twelve hours which is why it is only the article creator and the nominator who have discussed it. I'm aware about organisation, I was putting the article into British English as it is a British subject. (Same goes for the dates). Let's see what others think about the strength of the arguments. Woody (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was implying that I think you nominating this article for deletion was an act of goodwill, but in light of what I pointed out, there's no general agreement about what you're saying - that he's not notable enough. Otherwise, someone would've suggested or proposed his deletion already, or at least supported you here in your argument. And just because some or most of those links may don't meet basic criteria standards, doesn't contradict the fact that there're a few that clearly do, and that's what matters. As I said before, this issue isn't only right or wrong because it's a little subjective, and for the most part I disagree with you however I respect your opinion. Shalom11111 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My first impression was Keep but looking at the sources more closely and following the discussion above leaning to Delete. The topic is still evolving and very well could tip to notable if he has more mainstream press exposure, which will happen organically as his career progresses (or not). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My position is clearly stated above. Please, there's no need to be so picky about this specific article. Wikipedia has much more serious issues for us to spend our time on. Shalom11111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete -- Until I have some idea what the two organisations he has founded are and that either of them (both redlinks) is notable, I find it hard to accept that their founder is notable, when he seems to have done little else. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You guys keep referring to these two organizations, so if the fact that they're currently redlinks bothers you, ignore it and look at all the other things. Again, he's a frequent author/editor in major news networks, appeared in the radio and in TV interviews, and was even a director of the (blue-marked) Gatestone Institute. Has been the subject of several articles, and is undoubtedly more notable than thousands of other people on Wikipedia. It's been 7 days and there's no consensus, shouldn't the discussion be over and the deletion dismissed? Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not having a circular discussion with you here, my responses to your comment can be seen in the discussion at the top. As for when and how this will be closed , it is up to the closing admin. It might be relisted to generate further discussion or it might be closed. Personally I would say there is consensus to delete but remember it is on the strength of the argument based in policy not on counting votes (even if you did count "votes" it is 3 against the article creator for delete, and given it is a BLP of an unknown person sways it further in favour in delete. Woody (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the (blue-marked) Gatestone Institute." (Shalom11111) The color might change in the near future. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IsaDora cosmetics[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. most of the gnews hits are cosmetic industry sources so not third party. Other mentions simply confirm existence of company. LibStar (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has an article on Swedish Wikipedia. Was a partner and sponsor of the Eurovision 2013, is a major cosmetic company in Sweden. Does not fail WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added source for Eurovision partnership, sponsoring a huge event like Eurovision is not something a small company can do.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment - BabbaQ makes a very compelling point that this company is major enough and strongly established enough to sponsor an event like Eurovision. I am leaning keep, but I would like to see a bit more expansion and detail, and sourcing, on the article. Mabalu (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to modify comment into a definite keep vote, although I still think some better sources can be found. Slightly worried about reliance on blogs and press releases (which are not usually considered appropriate sources) but the company definitely sponsored Eurovision and is a globally successful brand. In addition, the article is not promotional in tone and appropriately neutral. Mabalu (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - probably a borderline case as a small-to-medium-sized company; Invima AB had a turnover of 374 MSEK = 43 MEUR in 2012, and 116 employees [2], but it's far from certain that total international sales figures end up in the Swedish company owning the brand, it could just be licensing fees that trickle back. However, marketing-intense consumer products of this kind tends to get more attention, as BabbaQ's case in point shows, so I'm leaning towards keep. Tomas e (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karolina Król[edit]

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

Blogger, writer and teenager. Published a single book. I am not seeing any mainstream coverage of her, nor of her book. As far as I can tell, outside of a very mild Polish blogosphere&friends buzz few months ago about "Teeneger publishes a book, cool", there is nothing to support notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom, a non notable individual. Finnegas (talk) 15:37, 31 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one example of significant coverage and it does not show notability. ^King Jakob _C2 16:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Imprint[edit]

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

Not notable. Small publishing company. Declined PROD. GregJackP Boomer! 11:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A NN small publishing house. I think I suggested its deletion on the AFD on one of the novels they published. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 28 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After I cleaned up the article to remove the vaguely promotional prose and take away the primary, merchant, and double cites, there just wasn't enough to merit an article. A search didn't provide any further sourcing to contradict this. If anyone wants to userfy this, I have no problem with that, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beasts (band)[edit]

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

I turned down a WP:CSD#A7 for this band, as I think they're a step up from the typical WP:GARAGE fodder that frequently gets marked for CSD. There are claims to be signed to a record label, supporting several notable bands, and appearances in magazines with national distribution such as Kerrang! I'll be charitable and say there is potential for them to release an album, and for it to chart, based on the current coverage. However, speculative prediction is no reason to have an article on Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN band lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Does not appear to meet WP:BAND criteria, despite some brief mentions in (some of the) magazines listed. Most of the first half of the article is unsourced biography. —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 27 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan E. Jubran[edit]

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

Page is an autobiography (see contribs). The only sources appear to be official credits, rather than any third party reliable sources that would meet WP:BLP or WP:N. Oren0 (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an autobiography of marginal or no notability, with no secondary sources for its main text. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has relevant references to unique research of value. I recommend cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.36.84 (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:98.247.36.84 appears to be the subject of this article. Oren0 (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping make the article neutral in terms of point of view. I believe Wikipedia pages related to pyrolysis (of waste), landfills (composition), gas separation (Carbon dioxide from Hydrogen sulfide), runoff curve number (determination) should reference the results of the research we have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejubran (talk • contribs) 08:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Marwan, I just followed the references on some of this research. Of the ones I clicked, I didn't see your name on any of them. Oren0 (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are 3 research projects I worked on, designing the systems, doing the experiments and collecting the results.
    - Generation and Composition of Construction and Demolition Waste in Florida,[3]
    - Construction and Testing of a Seepage Meter Test Tank and Testing of Seepage Meters,[4]
    - Use of Phosphogypsum to Biodegrade Municipal Solid Waste,[5], reference (M. E. Jubran) to my work on phosphogypsum research here [6] and here [7]
  - The reason my name is not on some is the fact that I did not write the publications. The rest of the research I was involved in writing the publications. This includes the patents and pending applications. If you see any other links that my name is not quoted let me know, I can produce evidence. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejubran (talk • contribs) 07:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If your name is not on these articles you can't cite them in your article as evidence of notability. Lots of people have patents and are in the credits of games, neither of these make you a notable subject of an encyclopedia article. Oren0 (talk) 03:29, 4 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not achieved either by WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Oren0: I removed all the statements in the article that have references where my name is not cited. I pioneered the use of static code analysis on games, which I believe makes me notable. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejubran (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reference that calls you a "pioneer" or is this your own interpretation? All the reference in the article demonstrates is that you gave a talk on static code analysis at a conference. See also: WP:PEACOCK. Oren0 (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oren0: Adding a reference: http://pkisensee.wordpress.com/page/10/, Quote: "Marwan Jubran is one of the true experts at Microsoft when it comes to code analysis." - please update as you see fit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejubran (talk • contribs)
    - Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources for the purposes of notability, especially in articles about living people. See WP:BLOGS and, more specifically, WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." (emphasis added) Oren0 (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Removed the entire statement in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejubran (talk • contribs) 09:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—If the static code analysis work is going to be the primary claim to notability then I'd expect to see peer-reviewed publications with significant cite counts as well as biographical articles in the gaming literature. If you can add those cites to the article I'll be happy to take another look. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lesser: Notability is not only based on the code analysis work I have done, citations are in game credits part of the article (game credits do not highlight the type of work I have done), and the patent granted on code analysis.
- Others include unique chemical, environmental, civil research work I have done, see publications and citations within the article.
- Current work I am doing is the datacenter space part of cloud computing and cloud services, highlighted by patents filed and pending.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejubran (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Multiverse Belgium[edit]

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

SPAM The Banner talk 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Non-independently-notable component of wider competition (Miss Multiverse). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multiverse Netherlands (Miss Multiverse Dominican Republic was already converted to redirect). Depends on outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multiverse... DMacks (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:51, 27 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Multiverse Netherlands[edit]

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

SPAM The Banner talk 09:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Non-independently-notable component of wider competition (Miss Multiverse). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multiverse Belgium (Miss Multiverse Dominican Republic was already converted to redirect). Depends on outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multiverse... DMacks (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:59, 28 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with Miss Multiverse.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ultra Monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zetton[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultra Monsters. Not notable enough for its own article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultra Monsters#The original Ultraman. Possible search term. Cavarrone 05:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; the related articles are not formally listed, so they'll need to be addressed separately.Mojo Hand (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chikako Watanabe[edit]

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

This is an interesting case, if for meta reasons. This article hit a number of Wikipedia's high traffic recently ([8]), yet on the surface it looks like a failure of notability. All references are self-refs, there is no linked ja Wiki article... so why is that article so popular? Google does not show anything but some blogs other unreliable sources, so I smell something fishy here - self-promotion and some weird attempt to manipulate Wikipedia traffic. If I am right, contributions of creator Eveeseses48 (talk · contribs) may warrant a closer investigation (Shigeo Tamaru, NaNa (band) and some other music-themed articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a redirect to NaNa (band) is probably justified: ~~NaNa have had 2 albums on Warners and therefore meet WP:NMUSIC~~. Shigeo Tamaru, the other member of NaNa will probably deserve the same treatment. Members even of successful bands aren't automatically notable. But if the articles are correct, the band have had one album on Warners and one on For Life Music, which appears to meet WP:NMUSIC. I'd like some more reliable sources though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note that the band seems to be largely unknown in Japan. Oricon shows that they have never charted [9], and I can find no independent significant RS on them or on Watanabe in Japanese. Their Warner's page is about it [10]. That's probably why there is nothing on them in the JP Wikipedia. They do seem to possibly satisfy criterion 5 on WP:NMUSIC, but not any of the other criteria, at least for Japan. Michitaro (talk) 17:54, 27 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubious independent notability. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking for English sources also comes up with little. I increasingly believe even the band article is of dubious notability. Michitaro (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All articles related to NaNa (band). buff bills 7701 20:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electro Quarterstaff[edit]

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

Article fails to provide any references for notability as per WP:BAND that supports inclusion in Wikipedia. Mr Pyles (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BAND criteria #5, having released 2 albums on an indie label with numerous notable bands. I do, however, agree that we need more (and better) sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Woodroar. I would rather say delete due to lack of notability, but you can't get around crterion #5, which is pretty explicit about its requirements. Despite this, I'm not convinced the Willowtip site is very reliable, and would also be happy to see more reliable sources. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not finding much in the way of coverage in reliable sources - the best I came up with was this piece in Exclaim!. Gong show 22:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite hard; I'm not convinced they're notable myself, but the criterion mentioned above may allow them to slide past other requirements. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also something in the June 2011 issue of Decibel but, alas, it's not online. Woodroar (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A source doesn't have to be online to be valid for our purposes; we can source stuff to paper-only content such as books, newspapers or magazines. If anyone has a way to locate that article, it's potentially a valid source whether it's online or not. (Granted, for all we know it might just be a blurb that isn't substantial enough to constitute meaningful coverage — but if somebody is able to locate it and it is a relatively substantial article, then we can still use it.) Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, by "not online" I simply meant that it's difficult to verify its content, not to negate it being a RS. :) It turns out that Electro Quarterstaff were in the December 2006 issue of Decibel as well, that is not online, either but from the part quoted on the Willowip site it appears to be a review of their first album on that label. Since the second article in Decibel was released around the same time as EQ's second Willowtip album, I can only assume that it's an album review as well. I'll try to track down some readily available sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wasn't sure which implication you meant, but it was worth clarifying anyway because some people do actually still genuinely believe that sources have to be published online to count toward RS. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, even if a band does meet one or more WP:BAND criteria we still don't have to keep the article if it can't be reliably sourced at all — so the fact that they've released two albums doesn't count unless you can source that they've garnered some meaningful degree of coverage for releasing two albums, and thus deletion is still entirely possible and acceptable here if good sourcing can't be found. That said, Exclaim! always counts as a reliable source for Canadian music (although obviously not enough in isolation), and Decibel doesn't have to be online — if somebody's able to locate and read it, it can still count too. So at this point I'm indecisive — the article clearly isn't good enough in its current state, but the potential does exist for some sourcing improvement here. So I guess I'm dancing on the edge of a Heymann: delete if the article's sourcing hasn't been improved by closing time, and keep if it has been. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per inability of editors to find reliable sources covering subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to Woodroar's contention item 5 is not met as it reads: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." Two albums, but not on a major label or an important indi label. When half of the artists on the label do not have articles, meaning they're not notable, it fails there. No other claim to notability has been made and the nomination is completely correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Bearcat makes an interesting point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per coverage in Exclaim [11] and in the Winnipeg Free Press [12]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:23, 3 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hagen Troy[edit]

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

Shameless (self?)-promotion by two (or perhaps just one?) closely-connected single-purpose account(s), User:Taylor.monki and User:Yingjie.huang; it's hard to tell through all the Chinese text, but appears completely to fail WP:NM. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article needs serious clean-up, but I did find a decent number of interviews, notably this by The Strait Times (actually ST Communities, but it's still The Strait Times). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Yingjie.huang has now been blocked as a sock of User:Taylor.monki. I suggest that if there is to be an article on Hagen Troy (and I'm as yet far from convinced that there should be), it should be a clean start, and that this COI mess should be deleted to make way for it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, promotional. stcommunities is a user posted site, user submits story and website publishes it. Caffeyw (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if this proves ST Communities' reliability, but I can see that a number of Wikipedia articles use it as a source. of course, if consensus determines that ST Communities is not reliable, then the articles which use it can should have new sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Narutolovehinata5 poses a valid question about Straits Times Communities, I think; I've posted about it at Reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Without endorsing STCommunities in general for everything, I trust the specific article in question, as it is from The New Paper, just reprinted on The Straits Times. As they're owned by the same holding company, I tend to believe it's a good reprint. Here is an additional article: "Hagen Troy – Finding his Passion", Ezyhealth. --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 2 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. I've now removed some of the more obviously unreliable sources from the article, but am hampered by my total ignorance even of what kind of Chinese text much of it is written in. The remaining sources are these:

http://dramahaven.com/name/bountiful-blessings/
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Showbiz/Story/A1Story20130513-422132.html
http://breathe.sg/choices/knowing-loving-and-respecting-yourself-the-choice-is-yours/
http://www.ezyhealth.com/magazine/hagen-troy/
Knowing, Loving and Respecting Yourself: The Choice Is Yours. Breathe.sg (2011-06-08). Retrieved on 2012-08-19.
没品 (可以不可以) “Out of My League”. Breathe.sg (2011-05-03). Retrieved on 2012-08-19.
银河网路电台. Iwant-radio.com. Retrieved on 2012-08-19.
銀河網路電台. Iwant-song.com (2007-10-16). Retrieved on 2012-08-19.
孙耀威永远保护你歌词. 666ccc.com. Retrieved on 2012-08-19.
《女人们的咖啡》)_搜索_互动百科. Hudong.com. Retrieved on 2012-08-19.
http://www.afa.org.sg/act/38/TheAct38.pdf}
http://yule.zhishi.sohu.com/question/33301062.html?fr=srch&"
Top 10 Pop Albums in 1st Half of 2009. English.cri.cn (2009-09-29). Retrieved on 2012-08-19.

Would anyone care to comment on the reliability or otherwise of those? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artists for Peace and Justice[edit]

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

I would have considered a G11 on this promotional article, had it not been accepted from AfC. Sentences in an article about an organization in the form X began when Y met Z.... are almost always the work of paid promotional editors or those who imitate them DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability demonstrated in HuffPo and Canada.com references. In the absense of promotional tone, we need to remember to assume good faith here. RadioFan (talk) 01:57, 21 August 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, TBrandley (T • C • B) 15:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paul Haggis. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:18, 28 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—references indicate notability, and merging to the organization's creator doesn't make sense, as it will (hopefully) continue after he's gone. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banco Venezolano de Crédito[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:40, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very large, historic bank holding company in Venezuela. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:37, 28 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Article (slightly) expanded and three references added. There are a million more in Spanish, but I'm not a good enough speaker to go much further than I did. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see plenty of gnews hits. meets WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Protest the Hero. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search for the Truth[edit]

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

Deprodded by IP with the rationale ". This is a valid piece of information on a record a well known band made. There is 1 source for this music as well." The "one source" is WP:PRIMARY, and I could find no reliable secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:52, 28 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the the band. Or delete. Either is fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beastie bay[edit]

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

Video game launched this year; the article is essentially a game guide. Fails to establish notability, no third-party references. Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no context, just a list of instructions. Deb (talk) 17:52, 27 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—WP:GAMEGUIDE. The game itself might be notable, but I lack the energy to troll Google for sources, considering the current article would have to be deleted before an article could be written about the game. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Isn't structured like a regular Wikipedia article and reads more like something copypasta'd from a Wikia page (iOS/Android Wikia?). --Helioptile: Fully charged! 18:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 M. S. Raju. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sumanth Ashwin (Telugu Actor)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR; he only acted in one upcoming movie. Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 13:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on his father M. S. Raju. Can always be broken back out later if additional coverage emerges. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:45, 28 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buenaventura (mining company)[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very large company with plenty of sources covering it substantially. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:45, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro Química[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brazilian company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues and a very long history. Manifestly notable. Plent yof coverage in reliable sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:50, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andahuasi[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Peruvian company. Lots of sources exist covering this entity substantially. Makes me wonder what nominator means when he/she says they couldn't find sources??? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:39, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coporación Aceros Arequipa[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large and notable Peruvian company with plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:44, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El Brocal[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large and well established (1956) mining company. Also serves as a target for coverage of its mines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:22, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SM-Chile[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 16:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very large and very notable company. Plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:35, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MANPA[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:05, 20 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 17:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leading Venezuelan pulp and paper company. Manifestly notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:20, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banco Nossa Caixa[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge into Banco do Brasil -- Y not? 14:14, 22 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 17:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very large and very notable business entity. No objection to considering merger of this topic. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:15, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intergroup Financial Services[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manifestly notable holding company. Extensive article already exists on one of the company's it controls. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:36, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ferreyros[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manifestly notable Peruvian conglomerate founded in the 1920s. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:48, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milpo (Mining company)[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable company founded many decades ago. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:51, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OPIN[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked it up, it's a NN subsidiary of ONEXIM, which doesn't have an article of its own either - instead it is covered in Mikhail Prokhorov, who controls it ultimately. This can be a cheap redirect to Mikhail Prokhorov after deletion. -- Y not? 21:31, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HIghly notable and very substantially ccovered in reliable independent sources. " It was the first Russian real estate developer to list its shares in Russia. " As noted above a merge to ONEXIM (which doesn't yet exist) is worth considering. Links to highly notable Mikhail Prokhorov should also be noted in article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:53, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votorantim Novos Negócios[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:30, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge No reason for deletion as there is an existing article on the parent company. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:55, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even (company)[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very large Brazilian company listed publicly on BOVESPA exchange. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:57, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indice General de la Bolsa de Valores de Colombia[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. Note that WP:LISTED is not, by itself, considered to be sufficient for notability I am One of Many (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merging with Bolsa de Valores de Colombia. A major index on the Colombian stock exchange. Plenty of coverage exists. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:48, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsa Nacional Agropecuaria[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:28, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major commodities exchange in Colombia. Plent of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:18, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ripley S.A.[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:22, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Massive Chilean department store chain. Manifestly notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:19, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigdo Koppers[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:13, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manifestly notable conglomerate founded in 1960. Plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:26, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jeffree Star discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love to my cobain[edit]

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

Delete, fails GNG. Specifically guidelines for albums and artists. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeffree Star discography as non-notable song. No evidence of detailed reviews or other substantial coverage: google search brings up only blogs, social networks, forums. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete history and redirect per Colapeninsula. The only thing that worries me is that the current version contains content by an editor that looks to be trying to perpetuate a hoax. The song is real, but I think that the history should be deleted so the editor in question doesn't just un-redirect it and leave the prior version as it was. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 undelete if anyone wants to transwiki. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife in Leeds[edit]

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

unreferenced for over 4 years. this article is really just a list of venues and all large cities would have "nightlife venues". there is no claim to Nightlife in Leeds being a notable topic worthy of its own article. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor excuse for an advert and full of original research. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete.~~ This unsourced article seems like an clear case of WP:NOTTRAVEL. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikivoyage. Seems like their scope, and they don't care much for references. Maybe they'll be able to work with that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even realize there was a such thing. That sounds like a good idea. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 15:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be plenty of sources out there including: Nightlife Venues in Leeds; Bouncers: Violence and Governance in the Night-time Economy; Violence Between Young People in Night-time Leisure Zones; The Gentrification of Nightlife and the Right to the City; Urban Nightscapes: Youth Cultures, Pleasure Spaces and Corporate Power; Yorkshire and the Northeast; Divisions in the dark: youth cultures, transitions and segmented consumption spaces in the night-time economy; Theorising urban playscapes: producing, regulating and consuming youthful nightlife city spaces; The London of the North? Youth cultures, urban change and nightlife; A Social Necessity?: The Importance of Nightlife, Alcohol Consumption and Debt to Student Identity in Leeds; Producing nightlife in the new urban entertainment economy: corporatization, branding and market segmentation; &c. The claim that the topic is not notable is therefore false. Warden (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki -- I have no doubt there is plenty of info, but I do not think it is encyclopaedic in nature. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki -- I tried to put this up for deletion over 2 years ago, but I guess I didn't follow the right proceedure. I still say it should go, has no place on wikipedia, badly written off the top of someone's head, contains NO source references and I agree with the above commentator that it reads like a travelguide (and not a very good one at that). So that should be enough to see it go. It also has one of the most hilarious headers of any wikipedia article. Thanks for telling me Headingley and Chapel Allerton 'attract many people', that's so informative! Kaleeyed (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relist comment The article creator appeared not to have been notified, so I've now done this. -- Trevj (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage It would probably work better than that. Perhaps aspects of it could be moved in with Tourism in Leeds. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Hotel Management College[edit]

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

After spending some time on this, I've decided to go ahead and nominate for deletion. We do not have the multiple independent sources necessary to satisfy our basic requirements for notability for this private hospitality college. I realize many articles in Category:Hospitality schools may share the same problem, but that's a WP:OSE argument that we need not concern ourselves with, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Lacks of secondary and tertiary sources. Article tone seems promotional and something you'll see in a guide or TV ad but could be fix to a non-promotional tone. ///EuroCarGT 02:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 30 August 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, Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; apparent bad-faith nomination by SPA (see comment and links below). (Non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grokline[edit]

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

Non-notable blog which is only referenced by self published sources, self promotion, fails WP:RS. Dead website used primarily as a link spam source to spam Wikipedia and the internet in general in a pay for hire scheme for black hat SEO link spamming Grokslots (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 09:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - POINTY disruptive nomination by SPA with an axe to grind against Groklaw and subjects related to it 1 2. -- KTC (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destroid[edit]

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

Advert for band lacking notability. Article has a bombardment of references. When you get rid of youtube, blogs, fanzines, primary,sound facebook, user contributed, gig listings, stores, lyrics site, press release, refs where Destroid isn't mentioned you are left with nothing. Blow it away. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could list all 44 sources and detail why each one is unusable to show notability, but ultimately that'd be a waste of time since there are so many. The bottom line is that many of the sources that initially look usable are actually about other people's accomplishments outside of the group. For instance, [Destroid#Existence_Conspiracy|the article mentions]] that they had a music video recorded by Mike Diva and that he won an award for something non-Destroid related. It doesn't help that the same section goes into excruciating detail about the marketing video made for the band, which comes across as pretty spammy. I might clean it up just to remove all of the blatantly unusable and spammy links, as well as the listing of every tour date and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've cleaned out the worst of the promotional prose and tone. The result is that almost all of the sources were removed since they were blog entries, press releases, and various primary sources. I've left two on the page, one MTV link about tour dates (primary/trivial) and one where they got onto a best list at a download site (merchant source, technically). It's dramatically different from the original version, which can be seen here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl79. I'm not even sure the MTV source is particularly good, just listing a band's tour dates saying nothing at all why they're notable or not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was more of a trivial source at best and I used it more to back up that they've done some live performances. I was feeling slightly bad that none of the sources were usable to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. If the article needs to be merged or moved, that's something that needs to be discussed at the article talk page, AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Phillips (merchant mariner)[edit]

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

Four years ago Captain Phillips here captivated us all with his courage and heroism in the face of a pirate attack against his vessel. His exploits have even resulted in a movie deal and other interesting bonus for his life. Despite all this though there are two rather important issues in the article as it stands. First, this still fails WP:ONEEVENT. Now I admit to being an inclusionist, so it kills me to say this, but if I am willing to argue that a Clayton Hartwig, who was accused of causing the largest peacetime death toll in US Navy history is unworthy for an article here on WP:ONEVENT grounds then I am compelled to observe the same thing here. The other issue is that whoever moved the article page neglected to move the talk page as well so at a minimum the histories for the two talk pages need to be merged. Also, as a matter of procedure, we never settled on whether the Phillips article was a ONEVENT or not due to WP:SNOW closure at the last afd. I am therefore renominating this so we can determine if the following: 1) If the good captain deserves an article, 2) where said article should be, and 3) whose going to have the joyless duty of merging two separate talk page histories into one cohesive unit. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I am afraid this nomination seems to be based on a misinterpretation of WP:ONEEVENT, the first sentence the 2nd paragraph of which says: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Really, is there anyone who would dispute Phillips role was not central, or that the event was highly significant.
Second, Phillips role in the pirate capture -- isn't this distinct from whatever role he played in cooperating with a book or movie deal? Maybe back during the first {{afd}}, prior to his signing book deals, prior to invitations for public appearances, he could be described as a "one event" person -- this is no longer true, hasn't been true for four years. Geo Swan (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is actually not a misinterpretation of WP:ONEEVENT, but inconsistent application of it. For example, we have no article for Clayton Hartwig, as I noted above, because of WP:ONEEVENT, yet in the same breath we have Oliver Sipple, who saved the president but is really not notable beyond that point and thus could be considered for a ONEVENT deletion. If our guidelines and policy were always applied consistently, this would be less of an issue - and not just for Philips, believe me on that. Now I do note here that the examples I cite are milhist related, and Philips is not a milhist bio, so the rules are not exactly the same, that not withstanding there should still be some discussion on that. Also, if you read the afd, I am asking for two things, not just one. You've got the keep part down, but we need the "where's the article gonna be at" part so we can merge histories here when all is said and done. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except it isn't certain that Hartwig caused the explosion, so it's not a relevant comparison. We don't usually have articles on people who might have done something. And it's not the job of AfD to correct inconsistencies, but to apply the rules in the specific case. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - @TomStar81: WP:SOFIXIT? Mdann52 (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan's comment about WP:ONEEVENT. I also think that a feature film named after him is a strong indicator to have a biographical article as well. It seems to me to be a mild disservice to not provide that to readers; the presence of such an article would be expected. Not to mention that biopics compare fact and fiction. Regarding Clayton Hartwig, the AfD discussion was not very involved, and I don't think the bios compare well. I thought WP:ONEEVENT had some wording about avoiding articles on individuals likely to remain private? Is it on another page? I feel like the captain has not remained private since the event. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since a major motion picture is coming out about him and the incident that made him famous, people are going to be coming to wikipedia to find out more about him. That is what wikipedia is about. --rogerd (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film certainly makes him notable even if nothing else does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep....notability established for two events actually....the event itself and the movie about the event.--MONGO 16:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ONEEVENT does not apply here since he is notable due to the movie and the event. — -dainomite 16:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no case for deletion here as there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with Maersk Alabama hijacking or Captain Phillips (film). As there's more than one such major page associated with the subject, we are out of the scope of WP:ONEVENT. Warden (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Cunningham II[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet the guidelines laid out at WP:NTRACK or WP:NGRIDIRON, as a high schooler. Note that notability is not inherited. Ansh6 6 6 07:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn - when I first nominated it, TTT apparently wasn't done yet, so some of the more important details weren't in there yet. Now it's got a lot more, and I'd say passes WP:GNG. Ansh6 6 6 19:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While this article has peoples' attention, we should consider whether it should be located at its current location or Randall Cunningham, Jr.. I am unsure whether the widespread 2013 use of the II means he is already a father or something else.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The suffix II is usually used for a grandson who bears the name of a grandfather or a nephew the name of his uncle or other non-immediately-direct ancestor. The suffix III would indicate the son of a II or Junior or the same circumstances which would see someone have II instead of Junior. In a more rare instance it is used when siblings have the same name and the younger was named after the pre-deceased older sibling. Then there is the personal preference of the parents and the person himself which may not adhere to norms. He may use II but the style guide of some publication may demand a change to Jr. even though it is not what he personally uses or is personally known as. An example would be John Jacob Astor I who is technically himself a Junior (or whatever the German equivalent is) though he Anglicised his name from Johann Jakob to John Jacob and instead his son was known as the Junior and the name was passed around his descendants for many generations and not so many people know that in English John Jacob Astor I's father's name would be John Jacob Astor. I think there is one instance where a father-to-son actually skips a number because of a cousin who was born in the interim and got the name. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:GNG some sources use , Jr. and other II.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge - This is a tough call, here; there are quit a few sources justify an article, but I still don't feel the subject is noteable enough to justify his own article per WP:NTRACK or WP:NGRIDIRON. Maybe when he goes to college and plays for a team, we can re-create this article. Right now I feel it should be merged to Randall Cunningham. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 18:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you agree that there are quite a few sources, you should be reminded that WP:GNG is sufficient and if it passes GNG and fails WP:NTRACK or WP:NGRIDIRON, it is customary to keep an article. I.e., GNG pass overrules fail of any particular notability guideline such as NTRACK or NGRIDIRON.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's supported, apparently, that the guy jumped 7 feet 3.25 inches! And he set U.S. national records. --do ncr am 18:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - National record-setting, and passes WP:GNG; once GNG is met the "local standards" become irrelevant, and in this case GNG is met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The records are notable enough to get plenty of publicity in reliable sources. His tracks records have nothing to do with his dad and should not be cluttering up his dad's article as an aside. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G3 and also G10 (the whole section on the "most famous case" made it obvious that this was just an attempt to link some existing person to an invented mental disease here on Wikipedia. This should ideally have been blanked and speedy deleted). Fram (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siamese Twin Mental Disorder[edit]

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

WP:NEO - a google search for "Siamese Twin Mental Disorder" gives only this page, and I couldn't find anything about "(name removed by Fram for BLP reasons)" having such a disorder. Ansh6 6 6 07:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax, per CSD G3. Several internet searches yield nothing about this supposed condition. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious G3 CSD G-searches turn up absolutely nothing with regards to this. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 08:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3. Personally, I wouldn't have even bothered to open an AfD with this. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:POINTY nomination by WP:SPA. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groklaw[edit]

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

Non-notable blog which is only referenced by self published sources, self promotion, fails WP:RS. Dead website used primarily as a link spam source to spam Wikipedia and the internet in general in a pay for hire scheme for black hat SEO link spamming self promotion from an unknown and unidentifiable source on the internet. Fails WP:RSGrokslots (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was incorrectly transcluded to the day's log, listed by Deadbeef at 07:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, speedy keep as a disruptive nom by a SPA. I've also struck the nominator's delete !vote as redundant (!vote established by the nomination) Dea db eef 07:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the great PJ says along with the EFF, people have the right to speak anonymously without being called an SPA, censored, or attacked -- assume good faith please. 50.160.53.187 (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Failure of nom to read the sources, which include cited awards and/or in-depth commentary from numerous independent and major groups. DMacks (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

copied from User talk:DMacks

PT Barnum said "there's a sucker born every minute" and the groklaw website is proof positive this is true. If this Jones person were credible he/she/they/it would have no problem complying with WP policies about reliable content for a bio. The shameful scam these hucksters have played for almost a decade is at an end. The fact is, these people cut and run when the NSA got close to catching them. You will find they are the same people behind the DOS attacks on the internet and most of the botnets. Just a bunch of cyber criminals out making money. hired by IBM and several other parties to smear anyone for money. It's time they answered to the internet community for one of the biggest black hat SEO scams ever pulled on the internet. Let's see if they meet wikipedia's strict policies on bios -- NOT! 50.160.53.187 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will rely on reliable sources in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and note that you have a poor track record of reading the articles you are nominating. If this person/site is as bad as you say, obviously there will be substantial reliable sources proving it. And being the subject of substantial reliable sources makes the subject notable. Wikipedia covers all topics that are notable, whether or not someone thinks they are a positive influence, have a basis in fact, or even exist at all in reality. DMacks (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not if those sources are all self published, which they are. This groklaw site and PJ are a scam. 50.160.53.187 (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read what the sources actually are. And also double-check the deletion process...you seem to mistakenly think it is a poll, or that your nomination itself isn't an obvious stance that you would agree with yourself for deletion. DMacks (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the sources -- all blogs, secondary sources, republished primary sources -- no single reliable third party sources. Other blogs are not reliable sources. 50.160.53.187 (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll see if others think the American Bar Association and major linux journals are reliable or not. Nothing more to discuss here. DMacks (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "paid advertising" and the payment is black hat SEO link spamming. take off the groklaw rose colored glasses and look at it objectively. These things are still blogs and false reporting. There have been numerous fake bios on wikipedia. Just because this one happens to strike a resonant chord in folks doesn't make it credible. 50.160.53.187 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing more to discuss here" means exactly that. Stop wasting your time here on my talk-page with what is really AfD material. DMacks (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Referenced by variety of commentators, winner of awards, meticulous recording of various legal cases. Murray Langton (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, not to mention a possible block on the nominator, as his/her contributions indicate that s/he seems to have a problem with Groklaw and everything related to it (s/he even !voted twice in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Jones). I also wonder if the 50 IP above is a sockpuppet of his/hers. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - POINTY disruptive nomination by SPA with an axe to grind against Groklaw and subjects related to it. Subject is notable, well referenced, mutli-award winning, .... -- KTC (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines of Gundam[edit]

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

Articles fails WP:GNG, in that there is no significant coverage from reliable, independent sources about the "timelines of Gundam" that would establish real-world notability, and a Google Books search has proved inconclusive. Per the absence of any secondary coverage, WP:LISTN is also failed. Per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this is an unnecessary split about a non-notable subtopic of Gundam that shouldn't have been done. A large part of the article is dedicated to plot summarization which violates WP:NOTPLOT, what little non-plot commentary there is, is either non-sourced, sourced to first-party ("Bandai"), or sourced to unreliable sources ("fans"). Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination in light of an ongoing dispute is problematic for me, but the content and format of this developing article meets WP:CSC because the various timelines are all demonstrably a part of the group, are all major works that contain multiple media entries and have been unified with the Gundam's "Correct Century" Timeline that assembles the past as "Dark History" in works like AGE. This page simply cannot exist on the Franchise page, it would be too long and too detailed, this page will function as a complete list of Gundam works by chronologically, especially the Universal Century series which has been developed for 30 years. Universal Century lists some, bot not all of the media, while List of Gundam manga and novels is going to be merged into the Timelines in a better scope than the Star Wars media List of Star Wars comic books and List of Star Wars books which do the exact same thing, but are separate and do not bring to bear the entirety of the media in one format. It seems perfectly acceptable to have one page to do this as it not only aides in comprehending the behemoth that is Gundam, but puts the media in context which is key to understanding events from one work to the next. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSC is not a notability guideline, what you're looking for is WP:LISTN, which states "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The problem here is that the topic of Gundam timelines in itself is not notable and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article/list, and as such is not acceptable at all. You already have a complete list of Gundam-related media at Gundam#Franchise (and the various pages such as List of Gundam manga and novels), and copy-pasting that list elsewhere is not gonna be of any use, nor is adding coverage on timelines unsupported by any secondary RS. If the point is to build a list of Gundam fictional works, then name it so and drop the fictional timeline ordering (and any timeline content) in favor of an ordering per release date.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a list and corresponds to CSC and it completely meets LISTN, specifically " The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." Gundam is notable, the entire body of works has been subject to over 50 "Bibles" on it, dozens of fan works and compendiums that when stacked up are taller than you are. This page serves a major purpose and combining the pages fixes a problem. Anything beyond this will get into petty details to argue over, but the entire premise is acceptable under LISTN and has long stood as a smaller list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "clearly a list" as it begins with a prose section on timeline. To me, this looks like content randomly pieced up together without any clear direction.
Gundam is notable, but this article isn't "Gundam". It's "Timelines of Gundam". Per WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". For this to be notable you'll have to find coverage on the timelines of Gundam. Otherwise, as I've told you, if the point is to build a list of Gundam fictional works, then name it so and drop the fictional timeline ordering (and any timeline content) which violates WP:INUNIVERSE, in favor of an ordering per release date.

Delete per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:DIR, this is all just plot info with nothing behind it to back anything up real world speaking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a plot summary, lyric database or statistics, and you cited DIR wrong, but this is also not a directory and none of the criteria apply. Yes, this list follows an in-universe chronology of an extremely complex and numerous body of works. Its purpose is to make sense of that which cannot be stated in any other form or in any other way as concisely and as clearly as this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional chronology is plot summary, and WP:DIR is appropriately cited.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The topic is Gundam and its 100+ works. The chronology of Gundam is also important with over 50 books in a single series describing various aspects including the timelines and backstory. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time no, the topic isn't "Gundam", it's "Timelines of Gundam". And where are the sources about "the grouping or set in general". I doubt the "50 books describing the timeline and backstory" you refer to are proper reliable and independent secondary sources, as WP:N requires.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I'm not familiar enough with the finer points of notability to take out my wikilawyering foil and jump into this fencing match, but the article as is does not have a single citation, and the lead and Calendar system sections need a full rewrite with an eye on clarity, as I (as someone with no knowledge of the series) have no idea what's happening. Right now, this is not a presentable article, and I don't think I'm comfortable judging its notability in this state. If userfying isn't an option though, I would lean towards delete, not from a policy standpoint as much as from a personal belief that any article that doesn't have sources (and whose sources weren't removed as a result of malice), regardless of content or circumstance, should be deleted or userfied. Nothing in the mainspace should be allowed not to have sources, period. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:56, 29 August 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, Sandstein 06:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it currently does nothing to establish its relevance from a real world perspective and the fact that it is not a necessary companion article. TTN (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Pixar Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pixar Theory[edit]

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

A fan theory based on one article written last month. I have trouble even calling it a theory, since that would suggest more widespread discussion and adjoining writing on the subject. Rather, this is basically a Wikipedia page for a single article on a pop-culture website. Whether or not the article went "viral" doesn't seem important, as it is this page is essentially just an unsourced (links from other websites directing to the article aren't sources) advertisement for one article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That may be so in your eyes, but this article brings up a good point which brings up a good point. Furthermore, it has coverage on multiple websites, which denotes widespread coverage, and some of it could be written out more in the article, as evidenced by the aforementioned article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article recieved some coverage here: 1 2 3 and notability isn't temporary. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG and can't find any reasonably strong failures of WP:NOT. Ansh6 6 6 03:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or merge to "The Pixar Universe" per below. Ansh6 6 6 02:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the whole thing is really fan fiction. If WP had an article on it that article would be a part of the game, nothing else. BayShrimp (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge. Asserted notability seems to come primarily from blogs. I agree with BayShrimp. It strikes me as fan fiction that went viral. It might have enough notability to mention in the Pixar article, but I don't see how a standalone article could be written from what's available. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I think there are enough sources to support a merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to be a recognized meme: [13]. Do we have any guideline for Wikipedia:Notability (Internet memes)? I think we should have at leas an essay on past and current practices for this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of an SNG or an essay, we properly fall back to WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per topic of "The Pixar Theory" meeting WP:GNG... like it or not. Add IO9 [14] to the NON-blog sources offered above. Article and project will benefit from further expansion, over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)(I struck this. My new opinion follows immediately below this one.) Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}[reply]
REDIRECT to the older sourcable topic of The Pixar Universe which seems to be the basic concept behind the article on the theory of connectivity between the various Pixar films. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable fan fiction. Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fan fiction? Actually, the real-world commercial concept of The Pixar Universe has been around a lot longer and is easily sourcable. The article on "The Pixar Theory" simply addresses the wider concept of the Pixar Universe. Perhaps this article would best if renamed and refocused. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ for the reasons outlined above, though I wouldn't strongly object to a move to The Pixar Universe with this as a significant contribution to that "discussion". Stalwart111 05:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See new comment below. Stalwart111 01:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input on my talkpage. The Pixar Universe is now live. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely passes GNG, add Cinema Blend ([15]), The Guardian ([16]), BuzzFeed ([17]), The Daily Dot ([18]), Comic Vine ([19]), Geekosystem ([20]) to the list of the sources. Cavarrone 05:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a move to The Pixar Universe or Pixar Universe after a "keep" makes good sense and that as a topic is both a suitable accompaniment article to Pixar and will benefit the project by being expanded per available souces at the new location. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not very high quality sources. I still don't see notability established to my satisfaction. The citation to The Guardian is a blog post, for example. It looks like I'm in the minority here, though. I'm not sure how I feel about a rename. I'd probably leave that to a different discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About The Guardian blog, you should distinguish between self-published blogs, which are usually unreliable, and newspaper and magazine blogs written by professional journalists, which are usually reliable. Cavarrone 20:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm sure that NinjaRobotPirate was simply unaware that certain types of blogs are eminently acceptable. No doubt the closer will simply disregard an incorrect assertion made in innocence.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm quite familiar with that policy. I never said the source was self-published or that policy forbids the use of news blogs, so I don't understand where your post is coming from. However, I did say that blog posts are not sufficient to convince me of notability, and this is a blog post... in a news blog. Thus, still not sufficient to convince me of notability. Note: this is my opinion, and thus it may differ from yours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much and was simply being kind in offering you a way to regroup with dignity. Your choice to concentrate on just the one offered source makes it appear that you are ignoring that the guideline acceptable WP:NEWSBLOG was not the only source offered. And if you are aware of applicable guidelines and still choose to promote a stance that runs contrary to existing consensus and community standards, that's on you... and good luck. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be a bit more concerned about the consensus of "outside" opinion of Wikipedia. It was originally founded with the idea of being a respected and trustworthy source of serious information. Good luck with that. Although the other way is maybe more fun. :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to a potential article on "Pixar Universe". or maybe even better "Pixar worldview." By WP:Common sense and WP:WP is an encyclopedia. People look to WP as a source of serious information. Our articles are often cited, or copied uncited by major news media. In this case the original essay was not serious. Is anyone seriously proposing that the artists at Pixar have some master guidelines to make their stories interconnect, rather than just that they sometimes joke around and make references to other Pixar stories -- as they do to other pop culture? The topic is not serious, the original source and the sources commenting on it are not serious, it does not belong in an encyclopedia where naive people might take it seriously. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - P.S. I don't think an article on the Disney worldview would be out of line. I think lots of sources could be found which discuss it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Pixar Universe is now live. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - AND was itself itself taken to AFD just 23 minutes after going live. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That reply (and frankly this entire AfD) smacks of WP:I don't like it. It may not be serious, but it's got enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Is there any part of WP:NOT you can specifically point to? Ansh6 6 6 19:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite true, I don't like that fact that WP editors think this is a suitable topic. I am a MAJOR Pixar fan and I think the topic is a lot of fun, but not encyclopedia stuff. Let me try to think policy-wise... None of the sources are really a secondary source giving information about a real "Pixar Theory" or "Pixar Universe." They are clever fans and comedians making jokes and joking about each others' jokes. There is no real secondary source to fullfil GNG. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete no indication of any lasting significance or coverage - merely fluff story filler of the day. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You want policy. You can't handle policy. (I was joking there.) Seriously though, our article starts out: "The Pixar Theory is a thesis by Jon Negroni that theorizes that every character that is created by Pixar lives within the shared universe. The theory was derived..." Please provide a secondary source that says the "Pixar Theory" is a thesis or a theory? To me this implies it was seriously proposed as possibly true by Mr. Negroni. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And since Mr. N. is a living person WP:BLP can be invoked as well. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it remains well and properly sourced and not in any way defamatory toward Jon Negroni as a person, I think we're safe under WP:BLP considerations. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Preceding the Negroni thesis by a decade, the concept of there being a "Pixar Universe" has been noted in media since at least 2003. So I have been working on User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Pixar Universe and seek input for it either being acceptable itself as a separate article or perhaps merged into Pixar... and in either instance becoming a possible target for The Pixar Theory. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is much better since it presents multiple views on the issue in a fair way. I haven't checked out your sources but from what you have I would suggest you post it, and I would defend it in an AfD. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pixar Universe is now live. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a fluff story resulting in a couple whimsical online articles a few weeks ago. The referenced articles themselves don't actually discuss the "theory" in any depth (which is rather amazing given their length); in fact they don't do much more than note the existence and author of the concept and mention that it holds that the Pixar characters share a common universe. Since we're not the news, and since WP:N requires more substantial coverage, this article should be deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no significant coverage past the standard "omg this is interesting let's run a story on it" from a few news orgs and then the "omg let's not let the others run it without us doing such" from the rest. Nonnotable. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 21:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to relevant articles. Yes, there are a handful of weak sources that use this phrase. However, its notability is entirely contingent on the well-known films it describes. It is properly one small portion of the potential body of literary interpretation and criticism of these films, and showcasing it by itself in a separate article is essentially (though unintentionally) a POV fork. The result of the merge should not be to remove the information it contains - indeed, it might end up copied a few times at the target locations, though hopefully in a somewhat more concise form. Wnt (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notable coverage yet. Rklawton (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a fan theory that was "interesting" to be pointed to by numerous sources during an otherwise slow news period, but there's been no enduring coverage of it. If anything, it could potentially be an internet phenomena but even then it fails to be shown how it has any persistent staying power. As others have noted, if these other sources even weighed in on the reasonableness of the theory, that may be something to keep, but otherwise this is just yet another interesting thing shared rapidly across the Internet. --01:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. Merge meets GNG. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Pixar Universe with Schmidt's draft as a base. I still think there is an argument for keeping this but I'm genuinely surprised we don't have an article about the broader universe itself which, as Schmidt's draft demonstrates, has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Create that article and merge/redirect this material across. Stalwart111 01:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Article on The Pixar Universe is now live, and might be considered a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HOWEVER, it was itself taken to AFD just 23 minutes after being brought to the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an article on much the same topic, using the same references which have been impeached here, so I am surprised that it was published while this discussion was ongoing. I believe the information it contains over and above that of this article is problematic for various reasons. I invite all participants in this AfD to contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Universe. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but dismissing them is not "impeaching" (such a highly charged term), as it is always difficult to "impeach" or refute or rebut what is published in reliable sources, specially when we do not care for "truth" only "verifibility" that something said to have been written was actually written . As for not waiting for this AFD to conclude (and a keep or a no consensus seemed possible), Its called WP:HANDLE, and certainly a use of some of them made sense in creating what was hoped to be a perhaps suitable redirect target... one which contains additional sources using the term "Pixar Universe" which were not used in the subject being discussed for deletion herein. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If a film company had secretly had a shared universe across all its movies over the course of a couple of decades, and that fact was discovered by a random fan, that would likely have been something. However, that didn't happen. Pixar has specifically said this isn't true, which makes an article on it rather pointless. Might be worth a sentence in the Pixar article, but that's about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've just described every conspiracy theory covered on WP, most of which respective governments have specifically said aren't true. That doesn't make those theories non-notable. Actually, the fact that Pixar has sought to respond to this particular theory suggests it's notable enough for them to have taken note of it. Stalwart111 12:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but did the Pixar corporation itself actually and anywhere officially state that the numerous artists and writers, familiar with earlier works and trained in Pixar's ways of doing things, did not use that trained knowledge to maintain a logical consistancy in works created for Pixar? Did Pixar as a corporation choose at any time over the last 10 years to refute the term "Pixar Universe" as used by multiple sources? All I found was the brief interview of Pixar employee Jay Ward and nothing "official" stemming from the big wigs themselves. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to The Pixar Universe, which is a much better container for this sub-topic. I would vote to delete this topic on its own because I don't think notability has been established supporting it as an independently notable topic, but it's absolutely viable for inclusion in a larger article on The Pixar Universe, given that it is verifiable (and kind of interesting, not that that matters). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Obscure drivel reproduced or discussed by some blogs on the same slow news day. If you actually included what the Pixar guy said, including "I think somebody had a lot of time on their hands. They may have had some other recreational activities." then it might turn in to a BLP problem. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just what THAT tells us is "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Conclusion: AS this event is non-routine, IF it receives continued coverage, it could merit its own article. However, even if not meriting its own article (yet) under WP:NOTNEWS, its coverage still allows the topic to be spoken of somewhere (ie: "can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics") even if not in its own article. And please, referring to a topic spoken of in numerous independent reliable sources, and not just in "some blogs", as "obscure drivel" feels a little of personal opinion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see google: the pixar universe seems GNG worthy to me -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to "The Pixar Universe" per WP:NOTNEWS, as a one-event conjecture or brain-belch (not really a time-tested "theory"), to merge as perhaps one sentence, or remove as fan fiction. -Wikid77 23:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "theory" that can be summed up in half a sentence in the Pixar article. Not every "viral" blog post should have an article. Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pixar or delete. One person's opinion without ongoing coverage is not worthy of a stand-alone article. This could easily be covered in the main article. Reso lute 01:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS and barely notable, just a theory about a series of animated films, so has almost no credible notability. doktorb _words^deeds 07:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Pixar Universe. The theory appears to be notable, but only barely. A brief mention on the main article would be acceptable, but it having its own article is unacceptable. — Richard BB 11:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Pixar Universe per WP:GNG and WP:PAGEDECIDE (notable content can still be relocated elsewhere if it provides better context). Note that WP:NOTNEWS is only for self-published news (that should go at WikiNews) and routine news items, while this subject is neither. Diego (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as demonstrably notable per the sources presented, then merge on editorial grounds to the more comprehensive article at The Pixar Universe. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Pixar Universe. Herostratus (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Pixar Universe; together, they are notable enough. Neutron (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both this article and The Pixar Universe are in AFD. Is the goal to purge this subject? As others have noted, together the idea is notable. Neither article really develops the idea in an encyclopedic manner. I think there is enough coverage out there for this article to be rewritten. I'd even be willing to take a stab at it. I think a developed Wiki article based on reliable news coverage could be useful rather than blog posts about the theory. NewsTeamAssemble (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I closed the discussion as no consensus, but it was requested to be reopened. The following was my close rationale: "The result was no consensus. In general, the keep !voters contend the this topic has received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article and that it is a "recognized meme", the delete !voters contend that the topic is "fan fiction", has "no indication of any lasting significance or coverage", fails WP:NOTNEWS and is lacking enough significant coverage in reliable sources, and the merge !voters contend that the content is worthy of being merged to another article or articles, with a significant lean toward merging to The Pixar Universe. (Non-administrator closure.)" Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there hasn't been any comment for two weeks, earlier commentators have showsn that the referencing isn't up to par to meet our guidelines —SpacemanSpiff 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Reo[edit]

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

Heavily ref-bombed. Google Books and Google News return only false positives. Sources are CD Baby, YouTube videos, IMDb, and other Wikipedia articles, and nothing that constitutes a reliable source. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Change to Delete - Needs work, but seems to meet notability guidelines. A simple search online shows articles from present back to the 70s from RS. Subject has written music for multiple major shows, and has been written about. Caffeyw (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding only name drops. Nothing that says anything about him other than that he exists. Care to prove me otherwise? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - After re-checking it seems the search engine was confusing my search for "David Reo" for a search on REO Speedwagons member Dave. Thus, the article from the 70s seem to be the only notable article, when excluding results for REO Speedwagon's member. Sorry, with both being music related I didn't catch the difference. Caffeyw (talk) 06:49, 24 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:05, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socovesa[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:07, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very large Chilean developer founded in the 1960s. Plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:11, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corimon[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:06, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large Venezuelan chemical company founded in 1940s. Manifestly notable and plenty of coverage exists. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:10, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Envases Venezolanos[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:06, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable company founded in 1952. plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:06, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mantex[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:05, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Venezuelan company. Plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:41, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIDERPERU[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large, well established, steel company covered substantiall in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:07, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tecnologia Automotiva Catarinense[edit]

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:03, 20 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe auto companies are generally considered notable. This one appears to have plenty of coverage. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:27, 28 August 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, Jujutacular (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix club (association football)[edit]

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

Clear case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. MicroX (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. MicroX (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. This article is essentially the same as the one that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pheonix clubs. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the CSD tag, I don't think it's eligible. Giant Snowman 11:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I read an article recently about the term "phoenix club" and examples of phoenix clubs around the world. Unfortunately, I did not add it as a reference to this article, and now am I unable to find it again. Either way, the subject "phoenix club" is definately notable, I can't see how that could be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. If it is the list of phoenix clubs that is the problem, this can easily be removed from the article. This nomination looks like content dispute that can be discussed at the talk-page and not a notability-issue that needs to be discussed in an AfD. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the term is quite widely used in football - see, for example, this search, but does it really merit a full-blown article, or would an entry at Glossary of association football terms suffice.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the concept seems to have received decent coverage, the article needs improving with prose rather than just being an unreferenced list. Giant Snowman 17:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If List of phoenix clubs was deleted why should Phoenix club (association football) be kept? The two sources in the article do not even mention the word "phoenix club". The search result listed above slightly cheats notability as "phoenix club" is searched with "Wimbledon". Without Wimbledon, "phoenix club" doesn't even seem to meet general notability. --MicroX (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That was just to back up the claim that the term is widely used in football. Without "Wimbledon" there would presumably be even more results........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does seem pretty clear that this is a list of clubs formed mainly off the back of the preceding club going bust. Perhaps the article title is not the best and a move should be considered, but the issue with this article appears to me to be more to do with lack of sourced prose than notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Couldn't agree more with GiantSnowman. This needs expanding not deleting. The term 'Phoenix club' is a known and used term in football and there are many reliable references out there.--Egghead06 (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What part of WP:OR or SYNTH is this supposed to be in clear violation of? The main problem with this article is that fans of some prominent phoenix clubs will edit war out their new club from the list. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Ofstad[edit]

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

I am unable to find any evidence that the subject of this article passes WP:PROF. Although the pages state that the subject has been a professor for 30 years and has participated in public debate, there is no evidence that this professor is notably influential. Triplestop (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the fact that he made it to the Norsk Biografisk Lexicon means he passes WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cited source makes notability abundantly clear, for example the first prose paragraph (after the parentage) and the last paragraph. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 23:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Our article doesn't say much, but notability (including several criteria of WP:PROF) is obvious after reading the source, even through Google translate. Nominator should have done that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Port Imperial Street Circuit[edit]

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

The race was originally scheduled to be held in 2013. It did not happen, and was rescheduled for 2014. The 2014 calendar has since been released, and the race has not been included on it. There is currently nothing to indicate that it will be rescheduled again for 2015, and even if it is, there is nothing to indicate that it will not simply be cancelled and rescheduled again. The page should be deleted until such time as it actually takes place as we are unable to demonstrate that it absolutely will happen, and we do not have articles for proposed circuits and races that were never built or held. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it and the page nominated for deletion are mutually inclusive. One cannot exist without the other.

Oppose both. Regardless of whether or not the race ever takes place, this event, and its track, pass the WP:GNG by a country mile. Existence does not matter when it comes to notability, and notability is not temporary. Now, it might be possible to merge the circuit article into the race article, because, as noted, the circuit exists only for the proposed race, but that is cleanup and AfD is not for that; the fact that other stuff doesn't exist is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Per The Bushranger. DH85868993 (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Per Bushranger. I also have a concern over whether this is WP:Pointy as the nominating editor has been engaged in an edit war on this subject, and I would seek assurances that there is no connection. --Falcadore (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to protest the accusation that I am nominating this article for deletion out of spite. I am nominating it because it is an article for a circuit that, at this point in time, is not going to be used any time soon. Using that logic, I might create articles for the Cancun, Isla Margarita, Pulskovkoe Airport, Mar del Plata and Green Point circuits. All of them were proposed and/or approved, but none of them were used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sufficent reliable sources for each of those tracks to indicate they, at any point, ever, met the WP:GNG, then actually, yes you should. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous time I asked you about editting behavior on this article you responded spitefully by maligning my behavior on unrelated articles so I felt the question had to be asked. If you reflected and believe that this is not the caase then I consider the question asked and answered. --Falcadore (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will also note that I criticised you for not reading everything that an editor posts. I should not be surprised that you have done it again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Grand Prix of America Djflem (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Per Bushranger, & because I'm not a fan of anything like this being deleted entirely. Merge it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. If sufficient reliable, significant, secondary sources can be found upon which to base an article then the article should stand. The fact that the circuit has never in fact emerged as a completed entity doesn't change the fact that it is noteworthy, clearly shown by the fact that so many local and international reputable sources have taken notice of it. The same comment applies to all articles, so if the OP can find the sources to demonstrate notability and verify facts then by all means they should write articles about whatever racing circuit they like. Pyrop e 14:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both - Per Bushranger, secondary, reliable sources have most certainly been provided. Just because an event will not happen does not make it non-notable. Zappa O Mati 00:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. The current calendar is all but final. The provisional calendar could easily be Bernie trying to say to the organizers of the Grand Prix of America: "Don't think I cannot replace you with another Grand Prix. Get your problems sorted out or you will not be on the calendar. There are enough other candidates to fill your slot on it." Let's just give this matter some time until we have a more final calendar. If we have some official confirmation that there will never be any sort of racing event on the Port Imperial Circuit we can delete the articles. Tvx1 (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Bernie has now himself denied the draft calendar and has confirmed that the Grand Prix of America still has a contract. [21] I think we should wait a couple of weeks until the WMSC decides on the calendar before deleting these articles. We'll have a clearer view on the situation by then. Tvx1 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the case the event has been cancelled, the articles meet WP:GNG and shouldn't be deleted anyway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Pheno (Kid Phenomenal)[edit]

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

Article is poorly written, contains no reliable third-party sources, appears to be about a non-notable artist (regardless of claims to the contrary: having a song played once on a TV show is not grounds for establishing notability: other artists with significantly more television presence of their music have still been found to be non-notable), and appears to be almost entirely a promotional effort to drum up notoriety and *make* the subject notable by way of having a Wikipedia article about themselves: this article would have to be completely re-written to have any hope of being neutral or factual, as none of the references provided have any value, but are instead almost all merely social media, personal, advertising or sales links. In fact, the closest thing to a reliable third-party source, the MyFoxBoston.com story, doesn't even mention the subject of the article.

Finally, given the prime author's (KingJoker1995) edit history, plus the fact that the IP address 184.4.13.41 that edited and then blanked another article on the same subject is located in Spring Lake, North Carolina (relatively near the listed hometown of this article's subject), I have reason to suspect a possible COI. besieged^talk 03:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see where the guy is really linked with any of the Hallways Swimming meme videos in any format that would show notability per Wikipedia. The additional problem is that the article tries to claim that this started in May, when really the meme started in 2009 and became popular in April of 2013. I agree with Besieged in that this looks like someone's attempt to link themselves with something popular in the hopes of making themselves popular by association. The problem with this attempt is that even if his music was in every video ever made, popularity of a song doesn't translate into notability for a person, especially since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the potential notability of a meme. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like one event stuff, and as noted above, notoriety for an event doesn't equal notability for a person associated with it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2007 triple homicide in Easton, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Non-notable crime coverage of an ordinary gang-related shooting. Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not asserted. One might be able to write an article about gang activity Easton but I'm uncertain of that (it's all local coverage) and this article isn't it. None of the problems identified in the original nomination have been addressed in the intervening three years. Murders proceedings inevitably acquire much coverage in the local press but there's simply no broader significance here. The article is also, after five years, a mainspace orphan save the inevitable "See also" link from Easton, Pennsylvania and a link of dubious relevance from Index of articles related to African Americans. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As I've stated before about this issue, I'm the primary author of this article, and I started it early on in my Wikipedia career, before I was very familiar with the policies. I think it could warrant its own article, arguably, but obviously the page as it stands now it's out of date and badly in need of improvement. This was a major case in this part of Pennsylvania, but I think rather than a separate article for it, Wikipedia would be better served by an article like Crime in Easton or Crime in the Lehigh Valley that briefly mentioned this homicide as part of a wider look at crime over the history of that city or region. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this crime lacks any lasting significance as such falis the WP:NOTNEWS policy. LGA _talk^edits 21:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing special about this crime. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 00:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda of the Tea Party movement[edit]

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

This article repeats much of the information in Tea Party movement. There isn't enough different information to justify another article. Moreover, it seems to be another means to wage content disputes over the tea party and related pages. I would suggest the page needs to be deleted and the section needs to be developed in the article Tea Party Movement. If it eventually makes sense to make a sub-page, do it at that point. Casprings (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and Casprings should be smacked with a trout for forum shopping. There was already an RFC on this very same question that was just closed today with a large number of participating editors. It may be reviewed on this Talk page. The proposed merge of this article into Tea Party movement failed. In fact, there was a consensus to keep the article. Patrolling admins, please close this speedily and Casprings, try improving the article. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep~~ - consensus seems to have been well and truly established in the discussion linked above. Consensus can change and editors should be encouraged to challenge consensus, but challenging it a few hours later seems like a pretty futile effort. Stalwart111 05:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clearly in the minority of legitimate editors here. This nomination is, I think, way out of process and is clearly in contravention of the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. That said, the community's consensus now seems to be that the article should be deleted without regard to processes that, to be fair, some might see as overly bureaucratic anyway. Being a big fan of WP:IAR, I respect their right to invoke it in this instance. Suggest this now be WP:SNOW closed. Stalwart111 09:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - This is a mish-mash of text that can be easily incorporated into the main article. Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Can" is not the same as "should." The subject matter or scope of the article is more than notable enough for its own separate article. Read the article. It has at least six quality peer-reviewed academic publications supporting it. Beyond notability, policy doesn't give us a lot of guidance here and it seems to be editors' choice. The editors expressed their choice in the RFC linked above. Consensus, when faced with the very same question just in the past few weeks, was to keep this article. You're beating a dead horse. Time to move on. If you feel it's a "mish mash" the solution is at your fingertips. Try improving the article. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete per above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read this discussion? This is already decided. It's reasonable to see attempts to challenge consensus after just a couple of days as gaming the system and WP:POVPUSHing. I will assume good faith, but if you don't like the article, improve it. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. I read the talk page, the merge proposal, and this page. I noted the accusation of forum shopping, which seems to have some merit. However, the person who proposed this deletion did not vote in the merge proposal, has not posted on the talk page, and his deletion proposal makes sense to me; if these are poor reasons to suspect that the charge of forum shopping is a judgment call, then it's because I have been awake for a long period of time. I'm sure the closing admin will take into account the fact that this could be forum shopping and disregard any irrelevant votes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~NinjaRobotPirate, why do you feel it's appropriate to challenge consensus just a few hours after the discussion was closed? GoodeOldeboy (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Merge and ~~redirect~~ Delete Per Casprings. Note: upon further consideration I have changed my !vote to delete on the basis that it's unlikely people will specifically be searching for an agenda page if it's covered in the main article. N^oformation ^Talk 19:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Has there been a change in WP:CONSENSUS policy that I've overlooked somehow? GoodeOldeboy (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

It is not necessary for you to respond to every comment here with the same point - you've made it clear enough. Whether the closer will see fit to incorporate your argument remains to be seen. However, I suspect that it won't be given much weight considering that local consensus does not override consensus in community forums like AFD and that WP is very much based on a system of checks and balances in the form of escalating DR. Any editor is free to express their !vote here - including you - but continuously repeating yourself is disruptive to the consensus process. With that said, I have no intention of continuing this line of discussion so you'll have to agree to disagree (or don't, either way I'm not wikilawyering over it). Lastly, your edit here is a very clear violation of WP:CANVAS which prohibits editors from soliciting opinions from other editors based on their known opinion, so please don't do that again. N^oformation ^Talk 23:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be redundant to the main article. Now that Arbcom has acted to keep activists away, it's time for a fresh start with the main article and forks like this should be cleared away to simplify that process. Warden (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, this is the topic of an opinion essay. Inherent content fork of the main article. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of similar splits of content for any other political group. "Agenda of" is also a potential POV-pushing term. There is no other article anywhere that start with "agenda of". This subject can and should be covered in the article on the Tea Party Movement. What next, will we have Agenda of the United States Democratic Party?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Series PunkHardyOrton[edit]

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

This Survivor Series does not match any of the Survivor Series in WWE. Also, it would be unnecessary due to each Survivor Series already having its own article. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not entirely sure what this article is even supposed to be. If it has something to do with a Survivor Series match then it should be in the appropriate Survivor Series article.LM2000 (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incomprehensible and unsourced material. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Total rubbish. Looks to me like a blatant hoax. — Richard BB 07:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear hoax unless I am missing something I am sure that The Rock and Del Rio have never been in the same Survivor Series Match nor can I even remember them being in any match together.--70.49.73.6 (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking an even closer look it is even more clear that it is a hoax. The match in question is said to have Jeff Hardy as a participant, however, he left the WWE almost 10 months before Del Rio's debut on SmackDown meaning it would be physically impossible for this match to have happened.--70.49.73.6 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 18:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Haro[edit]

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

A Canadian second-tier diplomat who doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete also fails WP:DIPLOMAT. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~. The article is written as a WP:MEMORIAL, so needs cleanup. There does seem to be some significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject is the focus of this news article[22], and his death is reported here[23]. Given the age, there are likely to be more sources which aren't available on-line. Pburka (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's not significant coverage. The Advocate article is about Texas-Canadian trade, and the Star just has a brief notice about his death. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I think that these both qualify. Pburka (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards deletion. Although I easily found one example of significant coverage on GNews, this article fails the multiple reliable sources test. Pburka (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

?. Why is this included in the academics section of AfD? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Because he had a faculty position at UVic? But that's not what he's notable for, clearly. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this person clearly fails basic notability tests. There is hardly any real news about him; there is very little about his career as a minor Diplomat or as an academic. A filtered search found 27 results (not the 1600-odd that Google expected), and most of those were vacuous (copied from WP, etc). One or two scraps of news about routine minor diplomatic activity do not make for notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be sufficiently notable as an academic, diplomat, nor as a victim-of-mysterious-accident. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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