Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 December	31 December >

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The result was withdrawn; also moved to Sultan-ul-Arifeen. (non-admin closure) ansh666 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan ul arifeen[edit]

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

Near duplicate of Sultan Bahu from which most of the text has been copied and pasted. No obvious reason to keep. kashmiri ^TALK 23:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sultan Bahu as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Article can Edit In Batter Way

Sultan-ul-Arifeen is a spiritual title in Islamic Sufism which is in past mostly used for two Muslim Saint

Bayazid Bastami (804-874) This title is written on his grave in Arabic writing see Tom Image
Bayazid Tomb

Sultan Bahoo (1630–1691) Title Sultan ul Arifeen also exist on all books written by Sultan Bahoo and on all books written by other authors on life and teachings of Sultan Bahoo, some books are:
Manaqib-e-Sultani
Sultan Bahoo- The Life and Teachings
Noor Ul Huda
Ain-ul-Faqr
Abyat e Bahoo
Hadrat Sultan Bahu Life and Work

these all books freely available on Internet and can be verified easily So deletion or merged with other single Article like Sultan Bahu or Bayazid Bastami is not an Exact action with this Article, So its separate entity is a write action and remove deletion tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrashid364 (talk • contribs) 13:31, December 31, 2014‎

Disambiguate if you insist, but the Bayazid Bastami article nowhere mentions this title as applicable to that person, so likely it is your own WP:OR. kashmiri ^TALK 19:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Reason for deletion or merging

No content of this article has been lifted.

This article 'Sultan ul arifeen has a separate identity of its own. The article talks about the titles and status of the saint Sultan Bahoo and should NOT be confused with his biography or history or personality which the article 'Sultan Bahu talks about.

Both the topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles.

There is no reason for merging the two articles. Neyn (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being the author of Sultan ul arifeen you are not supposed to vote here. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 19:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the comments on his article!!! It is indeed very SADDENING that such arguments are taking place on an article which talks about a well known holy saint of the Subcontinent. I wonder why it has become a trend especially in Pakistan that personal biases and religious enmities are the main focus whereas "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Expression" seem to be fading away. This particular User:Kashmiri is obviously unacknowledged with the famous Islamic saints and holds a personal or religious grudge against Sultan Bahu. It is a religious offense that is very dangerous for any individual, society, sectors, etc.

I REQUEST Wikipedia to take notice.

JugniSQ (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination : Article has now been reduced to a more acceptable form after shedding some 17,000 characters. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 20:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence of notability of this book has been found during this discussion and their are good arguments against keeping even a redirect. Given the lack of sources, merging content to the article on the author does not seem to be a good option either (although it can be mentioned (as opposed to discussed) in that article, but for that it is not necessary to keep the history of the present article. Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Structure of the Physical Universe[edit]

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

book of no importance whatsoever, possibly a redirect to the author but I thin it would be a confusing redirect, and therefore best deleted altogether. Despite some cleanup, the article is still a paraphrase of [1], which the copied material merely put into quotation marks. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DGG, may I know why you consider The Structure of the Physical Universe to be a "book of no importance whatsoever"? If we are going to have a discussion rather than an arbitrary decision by a higher-level Wikipedian, I would hope and expect opinions to be backed up by facts. SPU is a rare and rather obscure book, indeed, but one of key importance in the history of science. Yes, I have paraphrased the key quotes, which explain how the book came to be written. The point is that the starting point was the very modest goal of deriving observed inter-atomic distances from theoretical premises and the conclusions about the fundamental relationship between space and time, which became the basis of Larson’s later work, was the result of that decades-long labor, and laborious it was before the age of the calculator; Larson only had a slide rule to work with. The idea that space and time are reciprocals of one another, and hence that time is three-dimensional, like space is not something he just dreamed up one day; it was a consequence of those decades spent with his slide rule, and he ran into many dead ends, after years spent pursuing hunches that turned out to be mistaken, and had to start all over. I can go further in the process of describing the origins of the theory without quoting the preface if that is deemed desirable. But the book is without exaggeration on the level of Newton’s Principia in importance as far as the advancement of physical theory is concerned. It is very condensed and rather tough going, admittedly, but the Principia is not easy going either. At least SPU is written in English. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictorex (talk • contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the book seems to be opus magnum of an author who appears to have some ardent followers, even if niche - but article itself needs serious work per WP:IINFO, book summaries alone are not sufficient to keep. Redirect to author and summarise there, per arguments of other editors here. kashmiri ^TALK 23:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Worldcat has it in only 259 libraries worldwide. Not a 'major work' nor widely held. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though issued in a small print run and was not widely distributed, it was not self-published; it was published by subscription, i.e., based on advance sales. Its notability consists in marking the public emergence of a new axiomatic system of physical theory, which by the 1970’s gained a sizable following, when a society was founded that held annual conferences and published a quarterly journal. Some of Larson’s lectures at these conferences are available on youtube.User:Pictorex

Weak delete - if the work truly is, "on the level of Newton’s Principia in importance as far as the advancement of physical theory is concerned" then sources attesting to that fact, citing the book and summarising it to explain other related concepts should be easy to find. If such sources can be produced then I will reconsider. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this was serious science, it would have been published in reputable journals such as Physical Review. It is therefore pseudo-science. We do have articles on pseudo-science topics, but they have to have widely noted and this one does not seem to be. Some of it could be in the article on the author, but I agree with the nominator that a redirect is not justified. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, as it is not the mission of Wikipedia to pass judgment on the correctness of a given publication or theory. For example, the many worlds interpretation of QM is rank pseudoscience by any conceivable criterion, but still deemed respectable and worthy of inclusion due to its notoriety. The Reciprocal System is sufficiently widely noted to meet Wikipedia standards, and I will edit the article in the next few days to document the fact.User:Pictorex

You've already said "Keep". Don't !vote multiple times. —Al E.^(talk) 19:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author with history. I found one review in a peer review journal, but not really anything else. The other sources in the article aren't really usable to show notability since one is a primary source and the other is an interview that doesn't appear to have been through any place we could verify. In other words, we can't entirely tell if it was by a follower, a journalist, or so on. All I can really use to show any sort of notability is the review, which isn't enough to salvage the page. There are some things here and there that assert that the book is influential, but none of these would be considered reliable sources as they're all essentially self-published or reprints of past Wikipedia articles. At this point in time the article for the author does brush upon the overall theory that Larson pioneered (Reciprocal System of Theory), which is really what he's known for. The 1959 edition of the book was the start of this, but the RST is what he's pretty much known for. Until we have more sources to show notability for this specific book, I don't know that this really warrants an article outside of the main article at this point in time. However I see no harm in letting this redirect with history, since there is the possibility that there are sources in RS that do exist but aren't on the Internet. If/when those sources surface and pass muster, there would be an article history to pull from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author (changed from delete above, per User:Tokyogirl79). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with DGG that such a redirect might be confusing but I have no strong objection to that course of action. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just tagged the author's article for notability and needing third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am continually editing the article to take account of criticisms on this forum. In particular the introductory summation has been shortened and all quotations removed. A review by a prominent Italian astronomer in a peer-reviewed publication has been added, with a link to the original journal page. I shall be making further changes over the coming days so that the article meets all relevant Wikipedia criteria.Pictorex (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Pictorex[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, that's one of the uses of deletion discussions. However, the way you added the citation makes it next to impossible to trace to the journal - it would be helpful to put all such citations in the {{cite journal}} format. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 14:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and question the article on the author. This book has been cited 17 times in GScholar, but 3 of those are by the author himself, and the remaining cites are from a "journal" (actually a web site) hosted by the author himself. [2] He also has an "international Society of Unified Science" that holds an annual meeting with six people.[3] I can find no reliable sources about this person, the organization, or the book from third-party sources, other than the Journal of Molecular Structure book review. IMO, it's not enough to know that the book review exists - we should see what it says. Could someone with access post it somewhere? Also, according to Highbeam [4], North Pacific publishers "Publishes principally the books and papers of Dewey B. Larson. Reaches market through direct mail and International Society of Unified Science. Presently inactive. Currently distributes the books and papers of Dewey B. Larson. Does not accept unsolicited manuscripts." In other words, it's Larson himself, publishing his own works. LaMona (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LaMona: Rather his ghost. The guy has been dead for 25 years now. kashmiri ^TALK 18:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Coverage in reliable sources is rather scant, and my own searches turned up nothing promising. Seems to be mentioned almost entirely by unreliable in-universe fringe sources. Nothing worth merging or saving. Also think the article on the author should be deleted as well for the same reasons. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for proponents of fringe "science". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author I have to agree with DGG, it has no scientific value and is an example of crackpot theory. It is nevertheless interesting and I hope someone briefly describes the contents of his books within the context of the author's article. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g5, created by sock of banned User:Ryan kirkpatrick; page salted. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Atlantic Flight 43[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; no indication of enduring notability. Seattle (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, a very minor incident. Check the video No serious damage, no injuries, no changes to procedures likely, no lasting consequences and no real risk. These sorts of aviation incidents are daily occurrences. Just not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I imagine that this was a scary experience for everyone involved and they have my best wishes, but it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure, the aircraft landed without one landing gear, videos are quite impressive, incident might find its way to pilot training manuals. kashmiri ^TALK 00:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would guess that this new user does not yet understand how Wikipedia works. For those that are really interested the cause of this rare landing gear failure will be given in the UK AAIB incident report in great detail. The fact that the crew dumped fuel from the right wing only would indicate that Boeing have already catered for this eventuality in the flight manual. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject lacks appropriate notability. Igor the bunny (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not notable incident and probably created by a sock of banned user Ryan kirkpatrick. A totally new editor and his first work is a aviation accident article? It sounds just like Ryan and Ryan has been socking today. Two other articles created by him were deleted in the last 24 hours....William 00:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Whore of Babylon. Anything worth merging can be recovered from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon (New Testament)[edit]

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

This article is a POV fork for theological claims about Babylon. The 'Book of Revelation' section should be merged into Whore of Babylon. The article name is not necessary as a redirect. Jeffro77 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - elements within the Babylon in Popular Culture section should be merged to Babylon or Whore of Babylon, depending on the context of each element.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Whore of Babylon. No merge needed. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect as others have suggested. Most of the content seems to be related to or inspired by the Revelation reference. The brief discussion of 1 Peter 5:13 probably need to be merged into the whore article, but the NT hisotrical references need to be merged to the NT section of Babylon, as does the reference to the Assyrian see. I recall that one version of the Talmud is described as Babylonian; if so, that needs to be covered in the article on Babylon. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Liq Chuan[edit]

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

Non notable martial art. The only sources were written by the son of the style's founder and it doesn't meet any of the martial arts criteria at WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, subject to a russian-speaker confirming that there's no evidence of notability in the ru.wiki version. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no independent sources it doesn't meet WP:GNG and it doesn't meet any martial arts notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gold[edit]

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

His work as a doctor does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. His position as "Vice-Mayor of Beverly Hills" does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. The only discussion about him in other reliable sources, that I could find, concerns his re-run for Vice-Mayor. As such, he does not meet the WP:GNG. Additionally, most of his biographical info is un-cited and the overall tone of the article smacks of being a vanity piece. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 22:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity piece. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Fails GNG. -- Calidum 05:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet any specific notability criteria or WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – simply another !vote favoring deletion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others; fails WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I removed much of the vanityspamcruft. Passes barely. Bearian (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Jimmy Smith[edit]

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

He's a non-notable boxer. He fails to meet WP:NBOX and lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Notability is not achieved simply by fighting notable fighters.Jakejr (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Rugby Championship[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a rugby championship more than a year in the future. I am unable to find any reliable sources that establish that this subject meets WP:GNG. I searched 2016 "Castle Rugby Championship". - Mr X 22:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles require reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too soon to have an article. The 2015 games hasn't even started. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way to soon and everything on the article is a load of rubbish! Rugby.change (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no information available to have an article like this.--TMD Talk Page. 16:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo (software)[edit]

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

Unremarkable software product: fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:NSOFTWARE. Contested PROD was explained on the talk page. The few relevant hits from a Google search appear to be self-published. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will look more closely into WP:PRODUCT and WP:SOFTWARE later -- and argue them one by one, but would just point out that a slightly more intelligent Google search shows a different picture. This just shows that any Wikipedia debate can be skewed by manipulated Google stats. The article in question is put in the category Category:Content_management_systems; I can throw a dart and pick 10 random articles in this category that is LESS NOTABLE than Hugo. --Bep (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bep: Yes, but that argument just amounts to the fact that other stuff exists. And the sources in the search you give still aren't enough to establish notability. Coverage by WP:BLOGS isn't the same as coverage by independent, reliable sources. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just because you have a page named WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't invalidate my argument. Branding Hugo with the WP:BLOGS label is an insult to the people who have spent thousands of hours creating a software that is used by thousands of people. I have thousands of edits on Wikipedia, and I understand how it works. I will respect the conclusion in this thread, as I will try to improve on the article to address some of the concerns. But if this article is delete, I will use this new set standard to review all the current software articles -- and label them with the correct "suggest a delete" template. A merry new year to you all! --Bep (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. PRODUCT and SOFTWARE are guidelines only, and defer to GNG. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" or GTFO. Igor the bunny (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. (alternatively, merge somewhere if someone can find a non-list merge target.) Stuartyeates (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG. -- Calidum 05:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the number of forks on GitHub is alone enough eveidence for notability. See https://www.staticgen.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bep (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename dab page to Deir ez-Zor clashes. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deir ez-Zor clashes (2011–present)[edit]

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

Two of the three topics listed on this disambiguation page began in 2014, and therefore can not possibly be described as "2011–present"; no ambiguous topics exist for the name of this page. bd2412 T 20:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Rename Deir ez-Zor clashes. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Deir ez-Zor clashes per Stuartyeates. This is an WP:INCOMPDAB rather than a dab which can't be made useful. Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vetigel. Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suneris, Inc.[edit]

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

College start-up with limited coverage, no real notability behind it, article reads more like an advertisement. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Vetigel, their primary product. I'm not seeing evidence of promotional langauge here. I agree that the info on the company is pretty sparse, but the company is also pretty new. There's a few pieces of information about the company in Fortune, but the current sources in the article and additional ones ([5], [6], [7]) are chiefly about the product. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Vetigel. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Vetigel is Suneris' main product, the company is notable on its own. Vetigel is only a product for veterinarians and Suneris is working to expand the technology into many markets.^[1] There has been a large amount of coverage and interest in Suneris and its philosophy for all of the products that it will bring into the market, such as the piece on Bloomberg Television. ^[2]. While Suneris was started while its founders were in college, it is now no longer a college start up and is much more than a one product company. -- Freemanscott1123 (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://fortune.com/2014/12/29/a-liquid-bandage-for-every-pocket/
^ http://www.bloomberg.com/video/vetigel-the-band-aid-of-the-future-stops-bleeding-instantly-PaIvLxjcS66F5IWO1SsKtA.html

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Occurrences of numerals[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. IP editor had argued, "Does not appear to be encyclopaedic content. No clear subject, and lots here with the appearance of original research or a personal essay." On the one hand, this is kind of a formality since the IP can't nominate for deletion; on the other, I read the article, and it's highly problematic, to say the least. In other words, I support deletion. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is WP:OR and nonsensical. --Pmedema (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Isn't this just a version of Numerology with one particular author's spin? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. It has nothing to do with numerology. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I almost want to say speedy deletion here, as this material needs to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic; it's just not accessible. To boot, I don't really get what the topic is at all. And yes, I agree that the article in its current state feels very much like an essay. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I proposed its deletion and the reasons I gave also apply here. Please note that I also proposed the deletion of Charles Sanders Peirce's type–token distinction, which is very similar in style, tone and lack of encyclopaedic content. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no reason that this alleged 'topic' deserves a separate article; no appropriate sources have been shown to dispute that opinion. Igor the bunny (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure this is quite so clear cut, and the title of the article may well be part of the issue. Searches show enough information relating to John Corcoran's work on string theory on JSTOR and Scholar to raise a question mark. There is no doubt that it's a poor essay, but that's not the point here: is it a valid topic that can be re-written into something useful, rather than just deleted. (Ditto for Charles Sanders Peirce's type–token distinction on JSTOR and Scholar, which is a PROD (so far) to go undiscussed and unviewed, rather than an AfD. - SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essay, not nearly referenced enough to tell if it's of any value. BMK (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay by someone who appears to be trying to understand some of the ideas of the type-token distinction in the philosophy of mathematics and logic. The topic itself belongs in Type–token distinction (which is a really poor article on a notable topic). "Occurrences of numerals" looks to be made up and is not used in the philosophy of mathematics or logic. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this reads more like an Open University lecture than an encyclopedia. At best it could be moved to another website, but it doesn't belong here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would need to be started from scratch to be an encyclopedic article. Also concerns about original research. Chillum 20:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly sourced essay by a well-meaning, but inept student who is trying to wrap his mind a legitimate, but complex, topic already covered in another article. Nothing worth merging or saving. Gets an E for effort, but that doesn't translate into notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, this is indicative of an inept student and should be addressed in the type-token distinction entry.Maxxx12345 (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am not taking any actions on the co-nominated articles as those were added quite late and don't seem to have been discussed adequately. A separate AfD will be necessary for those. Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Film Critics Association[edit]

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

No assertion of significance or notability, only one non-primary source, and very few secondary sources to be found anywhere. This article appears to have been created primarily due to recent disagreement involving myself and other editors at Nightcrawler (film). Please see the recent edit history for more information, along with this discussion as to why non-notable awards (such as this one) are not included in film articles. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 17:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Two articles, both for award ceremonies of the NCFCA, already exist and have existed before this article was made. They can be found here and here. I would recommend deleting them as well, if it is decided to delete the main article. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 17:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH. This organization is not covered in the Los Angeles Times, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter, which tends to mention or cover regional award organizations. The two places I've found this organization mentioned are Indiewire and and HitFix, but they do not say anything more than reporting the nominees/winners, which I think falls under "routine" at WP:ORGDEPTH. Sources that cover the organization more in depth, such as writing about its founder Kenneth R. Morefield and the organization's formation, would be ideal for keeping this article. I am happy to change my stance if these kinds of sources can be turned up, either now or in the future. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - articles require in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the article on the organization, but keep the article on the awards, as THEY have commentary and analysis in reliable sources the awarding organization does not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your assessment that the ceremonies are notable. Websites reporting on the outcome of the ceremonies is not notable enough to warrant inclusion, considering that it's just routine reporting of winners/nominees, such as this singular article from Indiewire for the 2012 ceremony, and these basic reports from Hitfix on 2013's nominees and winners. Neither source covers either ceremony in detail, other than the basics. Also, why would we keep lists for award ceremonies from non-notable groups? That seems pretty backwards. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 15:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a topic meets WP:GNG it is presumed to merit an article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. What I gather from other awards pages, like New York Film Critics Online which just contain few materials along with some external links. But still they exist and is not up for the deletion log. If we're going for the standards then why only this particular article, we have to consider other pages such as the one mentioned above. It would be unfair if happens otherwise. DtwipzB Talk 13:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dibyendutwipzbiswas, that article should be scrutinized as well. This one was only nominated because it was part of a content dispute. We don't really have anyone going around validating all the awards organizations articles to make sure they meet Wikipedia's notability standards. In addition, per WP:BEFORE, an article should not be deleted if it does not show the topic's notability, only if the topic is not notable, apart from the condition of the article. For the NYFCO, I found this and this, but I am not sure if these qualify for in-depth coverage of the organization. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to expand the article. Shall I do that or not ?? DtwipzB Talk 16:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see much evidence for notability. Popcornduff (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was OP requested G7. Alexf^(talk) 01:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsul Haque[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:MMANOT. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page (of his brother) for the same reason:Peter Rehse (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Neither of them meet WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. further discussion of a merge would be helpful Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undefeated WrestleMania streak of The Undertaker[edit]

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

The article adds limited new information and primarily duplicates information from elsewhere on the site. The existing section on the page The Undertaker is adequate. McPhail (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we can improve the article. Talk about the matches, the streak itself as a accomplishments. If nobody improves the article, I'll vote Delete. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been up for, what, a week? Not everything on Wikipedia needs to be absolutely perfect straight away. The article will be improved over time to include further information.
There is no duplication of other text from this website because I wrote it all myself, and it's all sourced.
The existing section on the page of The Undertaker is just a list of matches, and makes zero mention of anything else i.e. how the feuds happened, what happened in the matches. So, your three reasons for deletion are all horrifically wrong. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. One of the bigger stories within wrestling and this article offers a unique insight into the individual matches. Meets WP:N as there's been plenty of coverage in mainstream sources beyond even the wrestling press. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a big story enough by the time it was ended. Definitely needs expansion though, on the match types. The table in the accomplishments section of the Undertaker should be deleted. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, was arguably one of WWE's biggest storylines/attractions of the past decade. I do think that the article certainly needs some work but that's another matter.LM2000 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough information is available for an article. TMDrew (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My reasoning for delete is not because it isn't notable, I find that it is, instead because everything discussed is found in The Undertaker. Also, in its current condition it is not a good article as it is written mostly in universe as if Undertaker legitimately defeated people and has magical powers or that Lesnar's F-5s were really that devastating that Undertaker legitimately did not kick-out of a pin. These issues need to be resolved, not ignored. I say blow it and up and start over, not like we are losing the information. It also could use a better name.--WillC 01:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since there's been plenty of media attention. GNG definitely satisfied. 82.132.226.244 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Absolutely meets notability requirements. Covered by tons of media sources, the article needs work, not deletion. Gloss 22:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 12:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Công Phượng[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that the last version did not mention the club for which he currently plays. That does not change the fact that he still has not played in a fully pro league or for the Vietnamese national team, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Nothing has changed - the G4 was valid. Giant Snowman 15:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT until the player meets WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per previous AfD. IJA (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Project 86. KTC (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schwab[edit]

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

Unsourced. When I looked for sources, I found nothing that helped the subject meet WP:GNG. I found http://www.itbn.org/index/person/lib/people/sublib/Andrew+Schwab but nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Project 86. All of the music is covered there in more detail (no detail and no sources here). The only thing lacking there is the books, and I don't think he's notable as an author. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you not just have redirected it? It obviously should be a redirect and only needs to come here if the redirect gets reverted. --Michig (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I could have redirected it but since it was a contested PROD I thought it would be better to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article and redirect to band article, which seems to have substantial information. Fylbecatulous talk 15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renaming or moving can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Service Brigade[edit]

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

Current article has only one primary source. I took the time to research and develop the Scout-like organizations in the United States article (which is now incorrectly Youth organizations in the United States which is another issue). But during the research, not enough significant coverage was found to consider, but enough to have a section in the Scout-like organizations. I hope that the organizations article would allow CSB and other scouting to eventually have their own article. A few editors are fighting the redirects to the organizations article, so I am official requesting a Redirect from Christian Service Brigade to the organizations article. Spshu (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that the organizations article was already up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States and came with a huge keep. --Spshu (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the organization is notable. The article itself does need some work, but instead of deleting it, efforts should be made to improve the article. --evrik ^(talk) 15:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two issues here, one is a redirect of a binational organization (CSB has according to its own accounts a significant presence in both the US and Canada since the 1940s and claims a smaller presence elsewhere) to a USA only article (in either its old or new names) hence my opposition to a redirect. The second is notability. The organization has been around for some time (1940) currently with several hundred registered units across two countries. Various books mention them (Google search of books for 'Christian Service Brigade' and drop those published by the organization itself) such as "The Evangelicals: A Historical, Thematic, and Biographical Guide" by Robert H. Krapohl, Charles H. Lippy (1999, p. 162) which talks about its rapid growth and states it was adopted by the Church of God as its official youth program in the 1980s though the impression left is that it has declined from its heyday of a few decades back. --Erp (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a check of that book and other only turn up a mention which is insignificant coverage thus doesn't push the CSB into notability. --Spshu (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move. The parent organization is notable. The current article should be moved to CSB Ministries and expanded to include Battalion, Stockade, Treeclimbers, Tadpoles and GEMS. See WP:BRANCH. The programs can then be forked as the article grows. -- Gadget850^talk 16:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GEMS Girls' Clubs is actually under Dynamic Youth Ministries (DYM) not CSB along with Calvinist Cadet Corps and Youth Unlimited. DYM is another US/Canada organization redirected to the US only Youth organizations in the United States so should probably have its own article also with possibly its subsidiaries moved under it. Otherwise I agree with Gadget850 that a rename is appropriate. --Erp (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSB has GEMS listed, but it is a partnership; it should be listed in the CDB article with the main in the DYM article. That can be hashed out later.[8] But GEMS Girls' Clubs has the sme issue of no parent article. -- Gadget850^talk 18:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A clear pass of WP:NONPROFIT. -- 120.23.60.37 (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly renamed). This appears to be the youth program of a denomination, or it may be a para-church organization. CSB Ministries is currnetly a redirect to a section of another (long) article. It would be better to keep this article and shorten the section in the wider article, possibly by merging some of its content here. This is not the youth group of a local church, which I would certainly vote to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. blp1e arguments have not been refuted and this overcomes n Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Joffe-Walt[edit]

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

Despite having 62 citations, I have not found any in the article that are actually acceptable/verify notability. Primary sources, YouTube videos, his LinkedIn profile, brief mentions/quotes in the media, etc. do not impart notability. Promotion of Change.org and of the BLP's awards suggests a poorly-sourced vanity page on a successful, but not historically significant professional. CorporateM (Talk) 14:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not unreasonable to say that Joffe-Walt achieved some notability as a result of his false reporting in the UK Guardian newspaper: the UK Independent and Hong Kong SCMP both had articles about him on this subject. In which case, I believe the policy is that there should be a stub article only regarding this subject.I should add that from my experience of this article, the nature and timing of edits would appear consistent with one being use for promotional purposes.Tpaine99 (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the article is amended to something along the lines of this: [9] Tpaine99 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 21:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly support/done I reviewed the sources you provided above. They are in fact reliable sources and do cover his false reporting in-depth. I added a couple sentences to your draft on un-related topics and stubbed the article of all the promotion, primary sources and other junk. However, if that really is his only claim to notability, I wonder if the article should be named after this one event, as oppose to having an article that purports to be a complete biography, but is only actually about one aspect of his life. I think more discussion would be worthwhile and I hope this AfD attracts it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted after CorporateM's comments to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It seems to me that the blanking of his bio was rather indiscriminate. Our criteria for notability of journalists (WP:JOURNALIST) are pretty thin. They don't mention number of byline stories carried or journalistic awards. If the one story about false reporting was notable, then his awards for reporting in Africa seem relevant, and if so then the stories themselves can be linked. Likewise for the environmental reporting. If he reported on rape campaigns in Africa, then his anti-rape activism in college would seem to be relevant. change.org is an important progressive organization and he has an important post there. At least it's relevant to his post-journalism career. We had independent sources for all of that. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the retraction seems to have got quite a bit of coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the subject is really only notable for the false reporting incident then that is a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Besides which the error is as much an error of the paper that carried the story as the individual journalist because they failed to properly verify the facts and/or impose effective editorial oversight. Now that the article has been stubbed down to that and not much else, we are doing the subject a favour by deleting it. SpinningSpark 13:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milancy Khongstia[edit]

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

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

There are no reliable sources to prove that those players played in a fully professional league. (Their clubs do play in the professional I-League, but there are no evidence that they themselves played a single game). The wp:NFOOTY defines only players who have played in a fully professional league as notable. Those persons also fail wp:GNG as there are no reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There also more articles with the same issue:

--Vanjagenije (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both: Both teams involved in this domestic cup competition were fully-professional. If both teams in a competitive cup game are fully-professional then they are considered notable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, actually, that is not what the WP:NFOOTY says. That guideline says that notable players are those who "have played [...] in a fully professional league", not those who "have played in a team that plays in a fully professional league". Their teams do play in a professional league, but the question is: have those players ever played in a fully professional league? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can go bring this up at the talk page of WP:FOOTBALL but the general consensus is that players who play in official cup competitions in which both the teams come from leagues deemed as fully-professional are notable. If you would like some examples then see Stefan O'Connor or Isaac Hayden. These players have never played in the league but have represented Arsenal in cup competitions. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those players have played international matches for their national team. They are notable under different criteria. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At youth level, that does not make them notable. Only senior international caps grants notability in itself. They are notable for their cup appearances with Arsenal. In that case, Joseph Lalfakzuala, Pawan Kumar, and Nim Dorjee Tamang are notable as they have represented India at the youth levels. Again, take this up with at the talk page of WP:FOOTBALL and that will be the consensus that cup competitions like these in which both teams are fully-professional have notable players. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - long-held consensus at WP:FOOTBALL, as well as WP:COMMONSENSE, would tell you that playing in a competitive Cup game between two teams from fully-professional leagues is just as notable as playing in a competitive League game between two teams from fully-professional leagues. Ergo, these players meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New I-League season starts in two weeks. And when Royal Wahingdoh plays their first game, a lot of these players would have fulfuilled WP:NFOOTY. So for my money, no need to delete them. And as argued above, Federation Cup is a well-known tournament itself. Coderzombie (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All of them have played competitive fixtures between two fully-pro-league clubs. That this confers notability as a common sense extension of WP:NSPORT is a long standing consensus. Though I feel I should point out that future appearances, as suggested above, donot in fact contribute to notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTY per the above comments. -- Calidum 06:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Sir Sputnik passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Per GiantSnowman's argument. IJA (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GS, what is important is that they have splayed in a competitive match in a national / international competition between two FPL teams, not that that match took place within the same FPL. Fenix down (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open source statistics[edit]

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

I do not understand what the article is about. If it is about some particular software, than it is not notable. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Looks like an idea for studying statistical theory while looking at the source code of open-source programs, to see how programs do it. In any case it's WP:OR. No references, no assertion of notability. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Things like this exist, see R (programming language), but this article is WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This is a stub created on Dec. 30 by a new editor. Rather than delete it, and since we don't know where the editor was going with this, it makes sense to me to turn it back to the editor, with some encouragement to read WP:RS, and WP:NOTABILITY (and more) before continuing. I usually like to advise new editors that starting with a new article is the hardest route, and that making edits to current articles is a better way to gain experience. Also note that, depending where this editor lives, this is a holiday time, so editor may not be watching WP at the moment. LaMona (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. -- 120.23.38.47 (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quraan Classes In Tarbela[edit]

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

Non notable Quranic course. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A1. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old People Brown[edit]

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

I am not sure that this concept exists. Even the "source" cited in the article does not mention it at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3: Vandalism. Kolbasz (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the reasoning you take in building your argument for the deletion of this article. However, this is truly phenomenon and your critique may be targeted in the wrong direction. The issue then is that the article will need to be more substantiated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky201 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – #B9764F is indeed brown. But according to Wikipedia:No original research, we need evidence that someone else has already used the name "Old People Brown". We can't just make names up ourselves. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as racial slur. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No relevant sources have been provided, and I couldn't find any either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- Calidum 06:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LISFF- Lakecity International Short Film Festival[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable minor film festival sourced only to press releases and sponsor blogs. Fails WP:GNG with no reliable secondary sources. McGeddon (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise it may also have been created by a block evading sockpuppet, making it speedily deleteable under WP:G5. --McGeddon (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sourcing. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truck driving schools in the United States[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or Google Legacypac (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2014 (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/2014 December 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I came to this article it looked like this, a directory of non-notable companies, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. I removed all entries that did not have Wikipedia articles, but all that left was a handful of colleges that offer truck driving courses - notable as colleges, not as truck driving schools. There's nothing left that qualifies as a truck driving school that's notable for actually being a truck driving school, so I don't see anything to keep here. Squinge (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There actually should be an article on United States truck driving school, but a list of them is just a directory -- which WP is not.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is!!! Commercial driver's license training. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should that perhaps be renamed to something that makes it clear it's USA-specific? Squinge (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a directory. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presumably one could write a decent article on such schools, but this isn't it; you'd need to remove everything here for a decent article, so there's no point in retaining this. Redirecting to Commercial driver's license training wouldn't be a good idea, since it ought to be a globalised article, rather than its current US-only contents. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This only concerns truck driving schools in the U.S., which there should be a lot of given the number of truck drivers in the U.S. Since the vast majority of such schools are not notable, and a redirect is not plausible, it should be deleted. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we're not a directory. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR; we do not need an indiscriminate list which contains a huge amount of non-notable companies. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. -- Calidum 06:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Cunniffe[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, or that his company meets notability criteria. Created by WP:SPA (possible WP:COI?) Well done to Cunniffe for his entrepreneurial spirit, but as for inclusion in Wikipedia, I think it's WP:TOOSOON. Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per TOOSOON rationale. Vrac (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Garaventa[edit]

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

Autobiographical article written by and about the author. David Condrey ^{log talk} 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Toronto Star article is an interview about his disability much more than his career; not sufficient in and of itself for notability. The Royal Society of Arts appears to be a pay-to-join organization, so that doesn't contribute towards notability. The software award is the strongest argument here, but the award itself is not widely known and the software (based on a search for reviews and checking github) is otherwise non-notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this isn't an extremely strong article, the awards sponsored by Microsoft and the US government give it significance. The disabilities audience for software is small and mostly overlooked, so it isn't surprising that there are no mainstream publications covering this. There are some weak references as well, but I think they should be left in the article. I did reformat a few references to make their targets clearer and added more subheadings. (Although, I could also argue that the article should be about the software rather than the developer... I suspect that would be a more logical search in WP than one on the person.) LaMona (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Nowhere near enough for notability. The awards are very minor ones - the MS one seems to be a conference he presented at, or his product was presented at. I can see nothing about being a finalist in the reference. The 'US govt' one challengepost.com gives no indication it's government sponsored, but it does give out awards, several a month, most much larger than the one AccDC came third in. Nowhere near enough for notability, for this or AccDC.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unopposed deletion. Sandstein 20:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Products[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No references provided. Google search did not provide anything substantial. Please add references if notable. May also be merged to Crane Co. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highbeam returns various routine announcements prior to the company being taken over, and Google returns pages on hacking their vending machnies, but I am seeing nothing to indicate that the firm was of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Areca (company)[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No references provided although article created in 2005. Please add references if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close- edit time between AFD nominations suggest this editor is not taking any research time on this wave of AFDs. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you serious, dude? That's not a reason to close a community discussion. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a reference from a reliable source, needs work, but seems notable.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference is a company listing in Blooberg. It brings up nothing in a news search but its WP page. AlbinoFerret 16:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Bloomberg source is noncontributory to notability because it does not provide an in-depth analysis of the subject. The subject appears to have sparse to no deep coverage from independent reliable sources to meet WP:CORP. Mz7 (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Here^WebCite is an article from Génération NT. The article begins:
Areca Technology Corporation, fournisseur à l’échelon mondial de solutions de contrôleurs RAID interne ou externe, annonce la disponibilité de sa dernière carte ARC-1200 équipée de 2 ports SATA II et compatible avec l’interface PCIe 1x.
Here^Archive.org is an article from TweakTown. The article begins:
Areca Technology Corporation started life in 1999 and was formed by a team of storage product engineers in Taipei, Taiwan. The core of Areca is their dedicated research and development team that is responsible for Areca's success in the storage industry.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Areca Technology Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources from Cunard are just not up to it. The GNT source is about the product ARC-1200 rather than the company itself. As for the TweakTown article, text like "Around five years ago Areca's hard work and dedication propelled the company into a leading role in the storage controller market" smacks of something that has been provided by the company's marketing department and just reused without any actual analysis. I find it hard to accept that as a reliable source. And besides, although there is some spammy discussion of the company, the article is primarily about the ARC-1880 product. SpinningSpark 13:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3807/areca_arc_1880ix_24_pci_e_x8_sata_sas_raid_controller_w_24_crucial_realssd_c300s/index.html is listed as a review from Senior Storage Editor Chris Ramseyer. Perhaps Ramseyer is enthused about the product he's reviewing and is impressed with Areca's work. I don't think this is enough to discount the article as unreliable. http://www.tweaktown.com/contact/index.html indicates there is editorial oversight.
Although both articles are about Areca Technology Corporation's products, they provide significant coverage about the company. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Cunard (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — product reviews aren't significant coverage (WP:GNG) of a company; it also appears to fail WP:CORP, too. In fact, given the wording of the last-minute sources cited by Cunard, these reek of paid-to-review in the first place, and, in fact, TweakTown is listed as a blog by Google news. Speaking of Google News, check out the amazing similarity in wording between the hit for Areca's home page and the wording of the review from TweakTown. Also, even if it were a valid source—it's clearly not—a review related to a product release in no way demonstrates substantial coverage / significance of the company as required by either WP:CORP or WP:GNG, for this exact reason: it's easy to pay a handful of people to review your product, but it's much more difficult to garner significant awards and critical acclaim and/or ridicule across numerous independent sources for a company's long-term significance (and thus encyclopedic notability). --slakr^\ talk / 20:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to delete. SpinningSpark and Slakr's analysis of the sources have convinced me they are not enough for the company to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 13:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Hikawa[edit]

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

BLP without propper WP:RS. Two of the added references are self-published, the third does not source the claim or mention the subject. Needs WP:BLPSOURCES to meet verifiability criteria. At this time it fails to meet our WP:GNG. It also fails notability requirements for authors or artists. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also searched for references in Spain's Google, but could not find any reliable sources.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will not find any or just a few references in Spain's Google, because if you read the Akira Hikawa's biography, he has done his more important works in France, I invite you to search in France's Google, you will find much more references there. Regarding to notes and references in the article, I will add new ones that meet the verifiability criteria, you will see these changes during the next hours.--Goten25 (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC+01:00)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mainly unsourced and worded like a magazine article, with statements about how he felt at age 11 and lots of his inner thoughts. I did a quick edit of two paragraphs, but really feel that the entire biography section needs to be removed unless sources are found. That would leave just about nothing. The spanish language newspaper article is two paragraphs and does NOT include his name. The Big Bang Theory event was a online "viewer vote" contest, therefore not reliable. The article is created and edited by a single user who has only worked on this article. If this subject mainly operates in France, the French WP might be a more logical choice for an entry, assuming that he is notable in that context. LaMona (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, the sources listed do not establish notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpscare[edit]

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

This is just a dictionary entry. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It exists in Wikidictionary at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jump_scare. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Searching both "Jump scare" and "Jump scare meaning" on Google brings up WikiDictionary so not really seeing any benefits to having an article on it, ~~Perhaps a redirect would be better but have no idea where....~~ –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not overly convinced on keeping this but we're a encyclopedia after all, Plus Sam's done alot of work (Thanks Sam) so meh way aswell keep it –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.AlbinoFerret 15:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced as well as a dictionary entry - Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've reworded the article such that it provides some amount of information. It should really be located at Jump scare but I'll leave it where it is for the purposes of not confusing this AfD. The topic clearly passes the GNG through the large number of sources which discuss it, some of which I've added to the article. I'm not going to do much more work on the article for now in case it's deleted as a result of this discussion, but I'm happy to expand it further if kept. Sam Walton (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sam, and because I honestly believe that it could be expanded further. ansh666 19:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the uncovering of several good sources by Sam Walton. The topic is covered in some depth by several reliable sources so it appears to meet the GNG. -Thibbs (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per edits and sources added by Sam. This seems to be a legitimate term of art among screenwriters with a tradition and lots of material to explain. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the work put in by Sam. This appears to be an actual term used in filmmaking. -- Calidum 06:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seeing a good amount of sources supporting this as a technique. Agree it was problematic when nominated, though, as a single line opinion. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I didn't see it when nominated, but seems fine now. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 06:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celene (Greyhawk)[edit]

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

I'm not sure about individual nation within a particular campaign setting of D&D. I can't seem to find sources evidencing out of universe notability to Celene. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the prior deletion discussion from seven years ago largely admitted that any notability is inherited from the notability of the greater Greyhawk campaign setting but notability is not inherited down to the individual nations within that setting. The argument that it was notable based entirely on the existence of primary sources is against WP:FICTION to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fails GNG delete (or merge if there is an appropriate target which isnt itself only supported by primary sources)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Space Angels Network. SpinningSpark 12:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Anderson (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Promotional page for non-notable manager. Apparently an autobiography. Almost all the references are to his website or those of his companies, or to his own writings, or are about the companies rather than the individual. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article certainly suffers from "reference spam" to his own writings and inflates his importance. This makes assessing notability hard. I believe the Space News article is a good source. Is there a second? I'm not seeing one at the moment, but am open to persuasion. Pinging @The Herald: who accepted the artcile at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhat about BBc times and such?? They make him notable. That was the thing which drawn my attention for reviewing it..The Herald : ping me 16:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the editing has been done by a wp:SPA; user:Chadcanderson. The Vimeo link with the BBC? Is it actually about Chad? The rest feels like wp:BOMBARD Neonchameleon (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment The BBC is his inclusion on a panel, and the Times ref. is just a mention in a general article. I have just made a good faith effort to remove promotionalism, but reverted it, as there clearly was not going to be enough left. to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:42. Space News is not a notable publication; it appears to be some sort of industry insider news website. There does not seem to be much evidence that this businessperson has done anything to demand media attention. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Space News is notable or not (and it is probably notable) is irrelevant. What matters is if it is a reliable source or not. A publication that has existed (in print!) since 1989 and has an editorial staff is certainly presumed to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Space Angels Network. After some thought, Anderson is probably not quite notable enough for an article. The Space News article is the only good source (and it is a good one); the BBC panel inclusion indicates some importance, but is not a valid source for a bio. Anderson is quoted in the press on many other occasions, but without biographical material besides "director of Space Angels Network". This indicates he is largely treated as a private figure, and has no notability aside from the company. A (very brief) bio of Anderson at the Space Angels Network page would, however, be appropriate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept the merge suggested, though the combined article would require considerable rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Perhaps we do have agreement for a selective merge. I'm willing to do it DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal Kaleidoscope[edit]

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

I'm not exactly sure what a "film retrospective" is, but this article purports to be an important career accomplishment of its creator Zoran Dragelj, a non-notable Canadian filmmaker whose Wikipedia article has been nominated for deletion for a variety of reasons, including WP:N, WP:AUTOBIO. The first two hits of a Google search for "Aboriginal Kaleidoscope" and "Zoran Dragelj: are the respective Wikipedia articles, while the third hit is a CV of an academic who partook in this film retrospective. Many of the remaining the hits are heavily based on blog websites.This article was created by (and almost exclusively edited by) Zoran75 which is the confirmed Wikipedia account of Mr. Dragelj by his own admission. The account created this article as well a number of other articles of his work, which have been deleted for simply promoting Mr. Dragelj and failing to meet WP: NOTABILITY.

For further reference, please see AfDs for:

· Celluloid Souls
· Zoran Dragelj

I eat BC Fish (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources and is not notable. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It came to my attention that you are proposing to have wiki page, Aboriginal Kaleidoscope deleted. Please don't as this retrospective is really import since it was first of it's kind presented internationally and it was significant for many First Nations video and film artists who have participated. If you need more info please let me know. Thank you Zoran75 (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the thing is that while it may be the first of its kind presented internationally, being the first to do something doesn't automatically make it notable. It can make it more likely, but it's never a guarantee. What you will need to do is show where this film received coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspapers reviews of the film. Just claiming that it's notable because of this or that won't accomplish anything- you absolutely must provide coverage in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete until coverage comes forth showing notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sourcing. Simple existence is not an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia; notability is a factor of media coverage, not unsourced claims of being the first of something. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Content issues can be fixed through normal editing. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Solis[edit]

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

One of many such articles about marketing execs where a lot of effort has been made to make the page look legitimately sourced, when it isn't actually.

Out of more than 30+ sources, I have not found any that are acceptable/verify notability. Sources include brief mentions, quotes, interviews, and tips (lots of tips sources). There's amazon.com as a source, a marketing agency blog, a few other personal blogs, and a few citations to Brian Solis' homepage. The strong mainstream media sources in the article do not provide biographical information on him, but are interviews, tips, quotes and how-to pieces.

There are a few hits of him being quoted in The New York Times, but no biographical profiles. It's possible stubbing rather than deleting may be appropriate, as he does have some notability in marketing circles. CorporateM (Talk) 18:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stub: on the principle that he has written three books that have their own entries, and if those books are notable enough to be listed (and this is a whole other debate) then there should at least be some page for the author IMO. The rest of it looks like fluff, and I did recently AfD a linked article about an infographic which seemed like like fluff too. To be honest, the first time I read this article I did think that it should be deleted, but the books might just establish some notability. Shritwod (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is helpful, but his book "Putting the Public back in Public Relations" is the main text for the Social Media Course at University of Victoria, Canada. He is a pretty well known author in Social Media/PR circles so you would expect some sort of biography entry on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.100.16.219 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and also take a good look at the articles for his books, which I rather doubt achieve notability. (We can't assume that since those articles exist, the books are notable. A quick glance suggests they are not.) I agree with nom, the cites here are nearly all blogs or blog-like online sources. If those were removed (as they should be) there would be zero content in this article. Note that this article was created in 2008, so it pre-dates the book articles, and the presence of the book articles is not an argument to keep this page. LaMona (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Adamson, Deborah (1994-08-03). "Taking A Page From Reality - Pierce Student Targets Young With Magazine". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Brian Solis has dreams of becoming the next magazine magnate.
  The 23-year-old college student from Canoga Park is working on his aspirations as publisher and editor of "Reality Magazine," a free publication focusing on fashion and social issues.
  Stories range from the media coverage of molestation allegations against Michael Jackson to lighter fare such as an older woman falling for a younger man.
  "We write about whatever's the buzz - what people are talking about in the clubs, on campus and all over," Solis said. "I'm aiming for a Harper's Bazaar or a Vanity Fair, but I'd like to keep it free for the younger people."
2. "Solis: un gurú de los nuevos medios". El Comercio. 2011-12-08. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Hoy el experto estadounidense Brian Solis cumple 41 años, de los cuales veinte los ha dedicado a las relaciones públicas y la comunicación en los nuevos medios.
  Al final de la década de los 90, Solis comenzó a participar en comunidades en Internet, los primeros blogs y fundó FutureWorks, empresa encargada de crear estrategias de negocios en los nuevos medios y márketing.
  En el 2010 publicó el aclamado ?Engage!?, una guía para marcas y empresas que buscan construir y medir el éxito en la nueva web. Este año editó ?The End of Business as Usual?.
3. Macale, Sherilynn (2011-10-18). "Brian Solis on his new book, The End of Business as Usual [Interview]". The Next Web. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  It’s a new era of business and consumerism — and you play a role in defining it. Or that’s what Brian Solis, Principal Analyst at Altimeter Group says in his new book, The End of Business as Usual: Rewire the way you work to succeed in the customer revolution.
  Though Solis should really be a table name at this point — his Twitter alone boasts a cool 106k+ following — there may be a few of you who need a bit of brushing up. For those of you who find yourself unfamiliar, Solis is an analyst who has focused his work over the last 14 years on studying the effects of new media on business, marketing, publishing and culture. He’s also the author of “the industry reference guide to building and measuring success via the social web”, Engage, a book written for marketing and service professionals.
  Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 177#The Next Web, The Next Web passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
4. Mance, Henry (2011-12-07). "A mangled guide to surviving digital Darwinism". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-12-30.
  This is a review of Brian Solis' book The End of Business as Usual: Rewire the Way You Work to Succeed in the Consumer Revolution.
5. Dempster, Ann (2012-02-23). "The End of Business as Usual". Financial Adviser. Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-12-30. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  This is another review of Brian Solis' book The End of Business as Usual: Rewire the Way You Work to Succeed in the Consumer Revolution.
6. Shah, Rawn (2013-03-08). "Review: Brian Solis's '[What's The Future] Of Business'". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-12-30.
  This is a review of Brian Solis' book What's the Future of Business: Changing the Way Businesses Create Experiences.
7. Cameron, Mark (2014-02-14). "Social media prophet Brian Solis on what post-digital people want". BRW. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  On the 18th and 19th of February a number of the world’s best social media and digital strategy thinkers will meet at the Recital Centre in Melbourne for the first “Social Business” event. The keynote speaker is Brian Solis, principal of USA based Altimeter Group, futurist and the author of three books including “The End of Business as Usual”. In social media circles he has become something of a prophet.
8. Asghar, Rob (2013-08-12). "Building A Truly Social Business: A Conversation With Brian Solis". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Social media expert Brian Solis is one of those lucky souls who seems to be described more often than not as a “visionary,” for the manner in which he has seen and described an organizational future driven by new digital technology.
  In a new short-form e-book co-authored with Charlene Li, The Seven Success Factors of Social Business Strategy (published by Wiley Jossey-Bass), Solis presents a specific vision of “social business,” which goes beyond lip service in an age in which we talk about social more than we do social.
9. Schawbel, Dan (2013-03-14). "Brian Solis: The Future of Business is Shared Experiences". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  I recently spoke to Brian Solis, who is a principal at Altimeter Group, a research-based business advisory firm in San Francisco. Solis is globally recognized as one of the most prominent thought leaders and published authors in new media. Solis has studied and influenced the effects of emerging media on business, marketing, publishing, and culture. He’s written several books including The End Of Business As Usual and Engage. His latest book is called What’s the Future of Business: Changing the Way Businesses Create Experiences.
10. Mueller, MP (2010-09-02). "Social Media Are Easier Than You Think". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Tell great stories. The secret to creating brand allegiance is giving people a story along with every purchase. And what better venue than a social community that is there expressly to interact? Follow smart people like Brian Solis to learn how to hone your company’s storytelling skills.
  Mr. Solis is a principal at Silicon Valley’s new media agency, FutureWorks. Check out his Conversation Prism, which is a visual synopsis that shows how all of the social media sites out there can be leveraged and how they overlap and build on each other. Be multidimensional. Share your passions as well as your expertise. People buy products from companies whose values they align with.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Brian Solis to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to sources in article and listed above, per AUTHOR he has book reviews, too many to list here but some can be seen in the EbscoHost database here. -- GreenC 15:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stub: The sources provided above are not really in-depth biographical profiles where Mr. Solis is the subject of the article that could support a lengthy profile, but I think there is enough source material to suggest some notability. Someone could author a high quality two paragraph stub and for now a little cleanup would take care of the problem with blog sources, promotion, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 18:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: CorporateM is the nominator so I assume you are withdrawing this AfD? "Stub" is a defacto vote for Keep. Content issues should be worked out on the talk page. AfD is to determine Keep or Delete the topic (red vs blue link), not the content of the article. Sometimes people will agree to do something in AfD but it's irregular. -- GreenC 18:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources presented by Cunard. Passes GNG. Content issues can be worked out. -- Calidum 06:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lele Pons[edit]

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

Since this articles last deletion request, not much has changed. The article is of extremely poor quality. "Her favorite color is green" and I believe that the person is simply not notable enough. If all info that is unnecessary is removed it would probably only consist of an infobox. Rayukk (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to have gotten some substantial coverage from legitimate media sources. I agree that the article contains too much unnecessary trivia, although this is best fixed through editing, not deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've removed a lot of the unnecessary trivia from the article, including the information about her favorite color being green. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage of trivia v trivial coverage? It's easy to confuse the two here. Jacona (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article previously contained coverage of trivia such as information about Pons' favorite color, her pets, her favorite fandoms, ect. She has gotten some substantial coverage in reliable sources, so I do not believe that trivial coverage is an issue. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Spirit of Eagle. At least some of the sources are RS. Teen Vogue has an article. And how can someone with 5 million followers not be notable? – Margin1522 (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BattleTech#Universe. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Federated Commonwealth[edit]

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

No evidence of out of the universe notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to BattleTech#Universe. BOZ (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of it in to BattleTech#Universe - It's way too long for the entire lot to be Merged bur perhaps Merging the important parts in to BattleTech#Universe would be better ... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- excessively long, in-universe plot summary with nonexistent sourcing and no evidence of meeting any of our notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 09:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with BattleTech#Universe. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of country names in various languages[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Consists of only translations; should be moved to Wikitionary. The other project is much more mature now compared to the time of the first discussion. -- Beland (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the subpages which actually have the content:

-- Beland (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of these translations are already present on Wiktionary, where they belong. The rest should be moved there. I suggest transwikiing these pages to Wiktionary, so that the users there (including me) can sift through and add the translations that are not already present to the appropriate entries. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than just a few translations. Noteswork (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm open to changing my !vote, but I think we need more discussion, so I'd like to list some arguments for both sides from the previous AfD. First of all, as a translator, I'd like to say that this list is of no use to me because it's backwards. Normally I have a foreign word and need the English one. Second, I think the Wikitionary layout is better and that the entries there are more useful because they have the gender and links to the Wiktionaries of the various languages.
- Arguments on the Delete side: The main argument for Delete was ease of maintenance -- since Wiktionary and WP are sister projects, we should have only one list. Some editors also thought that translations belong on Wiktionary.
- Arguments on the Keep side: It's useful to have all the translations together instead of scattered among many Wikitionary entries. Wikipedia is more accessible than Wikitionary. The list has been used to settle naming disputes. Wikipedia has similar lists (city names, region names, etc.). It's interesting. Hundreds of contributors.
- My own opinion: The maintenance issue doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. E.g., the A–C page has had about 20 edits over the past year. It should be easy enough to move those changes over periodically. I also don't see any compelling reason why two lists can't exist -- the distributed one on Wikt and the all-together one here. If necessary, a working copy of this list can be saved on Wikt without deleting it here. This article gets a lot of page views, and I'm wondering why. Probably most of those users don't know about this AfD discussion, but I'd like to hear from them. It seems like a decision that will have wide-reaching consequences, so maybe more input is needed than just the four of us. Especially since we would overruling the clear majority of the previous AfD (which admittedly was a long time ago). – Margin1522 (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In earlier days on WP I would not have voted to keep, saying this is not what an encyclopedia is for, the information can be found elsewhere, etc. But now I see that people put a lot of work in it. And, although I can not imagine myself using it, some people will find it useful.Borock (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful. Hafspajen (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An encyclopedic list of country names in other languages, in other words, a list with clear inclusion criteria on a notable subject. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Lugnuts, this meets the criteria for an encyclopedic list, and it's a potentially valuable organizational tool. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. -- Calidum 06:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Abstaining for the moment, but I'm noticing that the Keep arguments seem to either (a) fail to address the deletion rationale or (b) rely on one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (e.g. it's useful, people put work into it, etc.). The issue isn't notability -- of course country names are notable. The issue is WP:NOT (and I suppose WP:SALAT). Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, isn't a translation tool, isn't a list of "various" anything. It seems to simply be outside the scope of the project, whether or not it's useful or people put time into it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Yes, I noticed when making that summary that it is like a list of arguments to avoid. Presumably the closer will take that into account. But I don't we need to decide what people use Wikipedia for. To many translators it is a translation tool. They use it all the time, because it helps to understand the topic you're working on. Anyway, I think the relevant policy here is WP:LISTGLOSSARY. This does indeed recommend migrating glossaries to Wiktionary. And many have been migrated. Sometimes we have glossaries on both. For example, both have glossaries of baseball terms. The Wiktionary entry on the infield fly rule might be more helpful to a language learner because it has links to the words in the entry. The Wikipedia entry might be more useful to a baseball fan, because it has a link to the infield fly article. As for this one, if I had to choose I would choose Wiktionary. But the one argument that did impress me was that it helped to settle naming disputes. These come up all the time, especially in articles about Europe. If having it here helps the encyclopedia, that might be a reason for keeping it. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep toponymy is encyclopedic, and these are little different that the numerous other glossaries, gazetteers, etc., which form part of the WP:Five pillars. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NotScripts[edit]

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

I'm a bit unclear on notability for this one. This browser extension is no longer supported by the creator, and is in fact no longer available for download in Google's web store. I've since removed the stale links, but the only thing that would lend any notability in this case is the article on Lifehacker that yet remains - and if I remember WP:N correctly, we need more than one article to convey that notability. On the other hand, notability is not temporary. But on the gripping hand, there are plenty of cases that state that notability is not permanent, either.

I'm bringing this to AFD, rather than PROD, because I feel discussion should probably be out on the forefront if there is to be discussion on this topic - and a speedy is definitely right out. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (creator) Improved - there's three WP:RS satisfying WP:GNG, and further sources in books [10], [11], and a claim of notability as the first NoScript like extension on Chrome. Widefox; talk 14:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - although expanding more than a stub may be difficult. Widefox; talk 22:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to add to this, the brief mention and/or bibliographical entries in the books you mention wouldn't qualify, actually. As to the other articles you provide, that's the part I'm unclear on - if prior mention of these, with little else to go on, could constitute notability under GNG. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[12] (so the scriptblock text should probably be reinserted as a fork), Kern, M. Kathleen, and Eric Phetteplace. "Hardening the browser." Reference & User Services Quarterly 51.3 (2012): 210-214., [13]. Passing mentions but noteworthy [14], etc.

Not sure what you mean by prior mention. We have more than 2 RS to satisfy GNG. Widefox; talk 09:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The few brief mentions in reliable sources do not justify an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 RS are about the topic, rather than brief mentions, which satisfies GNG.

As it appears difficult to expand beyond that, happy to Merge into say NoScript. Widefox; talk 22:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 09:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak Keep – for historical reasons. I agree that notability is not always permanent, but usually I think that would be the exceptional case where the subject was viewed as having the potential to become notable, but in retrospect never did. This extension was notable for a time as the first to provide an important function for an important browser. The article could be updated with information on ScriptBlock and renamed ScriptBlock, since that is the current version. Leaving NotScripts as a redirect. One reservation is that all of the in-depth information is from one writer -- Martin Brinkmann at Ghacks. But Ghacks has an article in WP, so I guess that counts as a RS. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to Weak Keep, since multiple articles by one writer (respected as he may be) don't count as multiple RS. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. keep arguments are non policy based Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruscism[edit]

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

Ukrainian nationalist bias (not WP:NPOV), contains original research, possibly a recreation of Russism and Russiaism pages which have been deleted as neologisms and attack pages, combined with original research – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See previous comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russism (ideology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russiasm – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The same arguments apply for deleting an article called "Ruscism" as applied for deleting an article called Russiaism (although the former spelling is a more accurate transliteration of the original Ukrainian/Russian). – Herzen (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep - Seems to be supported in non-English sources as a common use term. Sock users calling it "ukrainian nationalist bias" when it's a Russian term about Russia is just inflammatory. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name one reliable source which uses this term? All I see among the sources cited are blogs, almost exclusively Ukrainian. If this is "a Russian term about Russia", then why is there a Ukrainian WP article about this but not a Russian WP article? This term is silly and childish and has no place in an encyclopedia. It is nothing more than calling Russia names. It serves no other purpose or function. – Herzen (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is faulty logic, everyone knows the Russian government has a stranglehold on the internet and dissent, and even censors information on english wiki, nevermind ruwiki. I haven't forgotten how partisan you are to that regime, though, so this doesn't surprise me. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are confusing Russia with Ukraine. Ukraine has a Ministry of Propaganda, and is the only country in Europe to have one; Russia doesn't. As for "everyone knows" Russia does not have a free press: have a look at this:

Can you imagine Obama, Merkel, Hollande or Cameroon answering tough questions on live TV for 4 hours without teleprompters and staged and predefined journalist's questions?

No way, it would never happen.

Not to mention Poroshenko or our man Yats. – Herzen (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvivske: Meanwhile, Ukraine has banned the Russian film adaptation of Taras Bulba (news story in Russian). It turns out that the greatest Ukrainian writer, Nikolai Gogol, produced anti-Ukrainian propaganda. To quote from his short story Taras Bulba:

Степь чем далее, тем становилась прекраснее. Тогда весь юг, все то пространство, которое составляет нынешнюю Новороссию, до самого Черного моря, было зеленою, девственною пустынею.

The further the steppe goes, the more beautiful it becomes. Then the whole south, all that space which constitutes today's Novorossiya, to the very Black Sea, was a green, virgin desert.

Note: Novorossiya, not Ukraine. Gogol was a genius. – Herzen (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to it as a Ukrainian nationalist term as the only article on the subject that I could find on the subject in English, i.e. the only article I could understand, was an opinion piece written by a Ukrainian activist, which is not a reliable source in any case. However, since other users have stated that it is not a Ukrainian nationalist statement per se, then I retract that part of my statement. However, the way that the article is written does not appear neutral in any case.

Nevertheless, I would certainly say that the term "Ruscism" is a neologism, in the English context at least, and that this article is trying to boost its usage, a violation of Wikipedia policy. ("Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create a neologism in English.") – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 13:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term was used and described in an article in the EU Observer [15], but I couldn't find it covered in other English sources. However, I imagine that the term is used far more frequently in non-English sources. I was in fact able to find many potential sources through the usual Google, Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR mass search. However, I can't read the languages they were published in so I was unable to vouch for their worth as sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an opinion piece by someone who is described at that very Web page as "a Ukrainian activist and columnist". It is not wP policy to consider opinion pieces written by activists to be reliable sources. – Herzen (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've been running a couple of the sourced articles through Google translate, and there does appear to be several reliable sources describing the term Ruscism. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links, please? The one link to an Anglophone site you gave is not a reliable source. – Herzen (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources I’ve run through Google translate that include the term are: [16], [17] and [18]. I’m not sure how reliable the latter two sources are, but the first source is from Pravda. This seems to be a common-use term, although I agree that the article is in need of serious rewriting. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a common term in the Russian or Ukrainian context, but it's certainly not in the English context. I've already stated this before in this deletion discussion, but terms such as "Ruscism" can often be neologisms when translated into English, and the English language sources seem to corroborate that. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created by an SPA and possibly a sock (no other contributions to Wikipedia), not really supported by sources (Ukrainian media, at least in Russian, have about the same reliability as social media in general, everybody can publish bullshit any moment), WP:COATRACK (for example, the intro states that it is Russia + fascism, and the next section says it was introduced by Gertsen who died in 1867 and so on).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic keep - The word now has wide currency, Google brings up 204,000 hits.--Lute88 (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only got 3900 hits. Russophobia, in contrast, produces 159,000 hits. But the article on Russophobia was recently renamed to "Anti-Russian sentiment", because in the fantasy world of English Wikipedia, there is no such thing as Russophobia.

In any case, the number of Google hits a word produces has nothing to do with whether an article by that name should exist. What matters is whether reliable sources use the term "Ruscism". None do, because the word is silly and embarrassingly childish. Not even Metapedia has an article on "Ruscism": the word is too stupid even for Metapedia. – Herzen (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also intrigued as to where Lute88 got that number from. Nevertheless, the amount of hits a word gets on Google is not a reliable indicator as to whether there should be a Wikipedia article on the subject. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here - https://www.google.com/search?

You're going to say 'keep' based on the number of google searches a term returns? should we have a wiki article for 'asdfasdfasdfasdf' as well (122,000 results!)? Solntsa90 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

num=50&espv=2&q=%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC&oq=%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8&gs_l=serp.3.1.0l10.11126.17988.0.20354.12.10.2.0.0.0.219.925.8j1j1.10.0.chm_loc...0...1c.1.60.serp..2.10.783.0.8hSgLInueKM 205,000.--Lute88 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does seem to have a bit of editorializing, and the language is in fact poor.--Lute88 (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a transtcript form a Echo of Moscow radio statement by a "ruscist" actor, director and politician Ivan Okhlobystin: http://www.echomsk.spb.ru/blogs/ohlob/22853.php?commentId=82319

I'll try to translate it later. He says he is proud to be a ruscist.--Lute88 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep The term is used more and more, the article should remain but be updated in quality. I want to point out in addition that Ukrainian and Ukraine-related articles, just as the Russian language Wiki are constantly under attack, we on this English international Wiki should not bow to some Ruscist pressure and lose independence. All articles should be kept and frozen/secured during the Ukrainian War to avoid large-scale hooliganism. 134.255.2.125 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself from Echo of Moscow is titled in Russian 'What is Ruscism?', showing that not even Russians have an idea what this neologism is.

Strong delete--This same topic and relevant information is covered ad nauseum under Russification, yet manages to do so in a much less hateful, biased and paranoid tone. A bit of Ukrainian Nationalist bias if I ever saw one.

Also, Wiki tends to have a strong bias against recently-created neologisms that the media tries to get everyone using--so do I.Solntsa90 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

his is faulty logic, everyone knows the Russian government has a stranglehold on the internet and dissent, and even censors information on english wiki, nevermind ruwiki. I haven't forgotten how partisan you are to that regime, though, so this doesn't surprise me. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You really ought to recuse yourself, Lvovskiy. You have demonstrated that you are not capable of thinking rationally about such topics without your Ukranian Nationalist biases getting in the way, clouding your thinking and impairing your judgement. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly rename Rashizm the only reliable source I could find using this term was one published in a country where the native language was not English. If ever the term enters usage in reliable sources published in any of the majority-English-speaking countries then it can be reinstated. Quite rightly there are articles in English-language Wikipedia on foreign terms like Volksgemeinschaft, and maybe Rashizm is a Russian term that is worthy of an article in English-Wikipedia. But I cannot see a case at the moment for an article on the allegedly-English term Ruscism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native speaker of Russian--Ruscism is not a word common to our language, and appears to be a neologism which wiki tends to frown upon. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Term is topical and worthy of continued listing and discussion Banduryst (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Banduryst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Current article is hopelessly biased. the term is however used, and a NPOV discussion of it would make a possible article. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term is rather notable as "Rashizm" in Russian and Ukrainian languages (see also wiktionary) - 200,000 hits [19]. It is also present in several other wikis. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments on both sides seem to depend principally on whether the Adam Film World Big Boob Babe of the Year award is significant enough to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PORNBIO. The consensus is that it is not (and that the subject of the article does not meet any other notability crtieria). Deor (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Stevens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it fails PORNBIO because even though Adam Film World was a notable publication, its awards are not as well known as say AVN but also that the specific category Big Boob Babe of the Year is not significant, given only in 2008. Not in 2007, 2006, 2003. As such it is a token award falling under standard set out by the discussions formulating PORNBIO.[20][21]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether an Adam Film Word award is as "well known" as an AVN award is both unproven and absolutely irrelevant. We've already established that AFW is/was among the adult industry's leading publications; that much is reliably sourced and thus provable. I assume you have reliable sources to back your assertions that this particular award is "not significant"? If the same logic were applied to a Grammy Award that was only handed out for a brief period, would we say that the artist was not notable despite winning a Grammy Award? Of course not. The Grammys, btw, recently eliminated 30 categories; would you argue that any of those now-defunct categories are now "not significant" or that any of those winners were less notable? It's a shame this must be said yet again, but if the accolade is bestowed by an industry leader it simply cannot be regarded as "not significant" without something other than an opinion to back that up. Caper454 (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh its relative notability is relevant when it's in the PORNBIO criteria. Do the comparison:

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

Look at the news, books, and scholar hits... Yeah. Your analogy comparing AFW to the Grammy's is laughable. Talk about making mountains out of ant hills. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Uncelebrated, she fails WP:PORNSTAR. "Big-Boob Babe of the Year" for the short-lived and now-defunct "Adam Film World Guide" is not credible, well-known, and meaningful. As for sources, I only see Bangbros promotional profile, her personal twitter, and the usual AVN press-releases + IAFD.com. Fails WP:GNG Redban (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - win, so meets the requirements. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is sufficiently established and the subject clearly passes PORNBIO: she has won a well-known and significant [award] and this is quite clearly cited in the article. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the AFWG awards are the most significant in the industry. There should be no question here that deletion of this article would be inappropriate. Caper454 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AVN is, I believe, the most significant in this industry. The Adam-Film-World Awards has been gone since 2008; they lasted just 6 years. Do you really want to vote "Keep" on the basis of her being "Big-Boob Babe of the Year," an auxiliary, perhaps joke-able, category, for a short-lived magazine award? Redban (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@redban: Your own personal opinion is absolutely irrelevant. If you're so adamant that this award is neither well-known nor significant, the burden shall be on you to prove that. That will be an entirely different discussion. Until you are able to do that, this subject passes the notability guidelines. Caper454 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only minor award win. Fails GNG without non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. Finding only regurgitated press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious how an award from Adam Film World, a publication which has existed since the 1960s and has been described by the Associated Press as "one of the (adult) industry's leading trade publications" [22] can be dismissed as a "minor award". Any rational person would have to view an award from an industry leader as a rather meaningful accolade, thus quite sufficiently satisfying the guidelines' requirement that it be bestowed by a "well-known" and "significant" source. Caper454 (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because notability is not inherited. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And because you're misstating the PORNBIO criterion, which requires that the award itself be well-known and significant. In the past British crown honors, White House recognition, Rhodes scholarships, university awards, and military honors frommany nations have been found not to establish notability even though the awards came from undeniably well-known and significant award-givers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO; I agree with Caper454, Adam Film World is a well known & significant award and Stevens is a recipient of one which isn't a scene related/ensemble category. Redban's argument is flawed. First of all, don't try to belittle the award category because of it's name. Do you have any clue how many women with big breasts work in the porn industry in any given year? Being the one out of hundreds or thousands to win the award is an accomplishment. Secondly, the award was not "short-lived", it began in 1981. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above - Passes PORNBIO & GNG (Just a small note - Incase anyone looks at the history - I did accidentally close this as Speedy Keep as was closing some unrelated AFDs and accidentally went a bit far - Just thought I'd say before someone kicks up a fuss & drags me to one dramah board or another!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious - why do you say she passes WP:GNG? The others are arguing keep on the basis of "Big-Boob of the Year," not General Notability. The first reference in Whitney's article is actually a link to her Bangbros biography. Redban (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I found these[23][24] - Not perfect but better than nothing I guess, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note: I have, as of yet, done exactly zero research on this particular adult film performer here. However, Adam Film World has had a number of award ceremonies over the years (including the X-Caliber Awards & the Adam Film World Guide Awards), and they are/were all "well-known" awards within the adult film community. Is the specific category under question here ("Big-Boob Babe Of The Year") a "significant industry award"? Almost certainly not. Many award ceremonies give out awards in minor categories, and this specific category (currently under discussion here) is likely one of them. Guy1890 (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not? Prove it then. Opinions don't carry much weight in these discussions. I don't see how it's going to be possible to sufficiently classify the award in question as less significant than other awards handed out by the same source. Nothing in the guidelines will support this; it has already been sufficiently established that the source of the award is undeniably both "well-known" and "significant". Since the award is also neither scene-related nor from an ensemble category, it very clearly meets the criteria specified in the guidelines. Saying that this particular award is not significant will require proof, so go ahead and find it. Caper454 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to demandanyone has to prove anything to you. The closing admin will decide what votes carry most weight. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete BLPs require decent sources and this ain't that. Token awards for having big breasts carry no weight - especially if only "awarded" for one year. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. The Adam Film World Guide Awards fall so far below fall so far below the well-known/significant standard that they weren't even mentioned in a list of awards/nominations compiled for the porn wikiproject to be used in assessing potential notability (User:Epbr123/Adult award winners and nominees); nor was there any meaningful support for treating them as well-known/significant in the extensive PORNBIO RFCs and related discussions. Virtually all of the references to the award that I've checked were added by an SPA, violating an unblock commitment and an ANI consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with the view expressed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above. Finnegas (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails on all three criteria of PORNBIO. No notable awards or any other notable presence. -- fdewaele, 28 December 2014, 23:44 CET.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per fdewaele.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you all know that Раціональне анархіст is possibly a sockpuppet and currently being investigated. Both Cavarrone and me ([25], [26], [27]) believe that he and Redban (who already voted delete above) are the same user. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you all know that Rebecca1990 is once again making things up here. According to the link she cites, Cavarrone suggested that BBnumber1 was a Redban sock, not this editor. None of her own claims are supported by evidence, making this another one of her groundless personal attacks flung about indiscriminately to promote her position in deletion discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cavarrone said that BBnumber1 appears to be a Redban sockpuppet, and BBnumber1 is being investigated for sockpuppetry in connection with Раціональне анархіст. Redban already voted delete above and he can't just vote delete again under a different username in the same AfD. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous, and likely bad faith. Aside from the point that the SPI was closed without action for lack of evidence before you posted, the fact that Cavarrone believed (correctly) that one editor was a Redban sock in no way shows that he believed a different user was a Redban sock. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...CheckUser declined to run any checks related to Раціональне анархіст in the absence of actual evidence...."' <much laughter> --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that the SPI had been closed until after I commented. I also wasn't the one who began the SPI or even suggested it. I do believe that the SPI was closed too soon and that evidence proving that Раціональне анархіст and Redban are the same person is piling up. Aside from the four similarities between the two that I listed at the SPI, both usernames have made similar comments regarding foreign language sources ([28] and [29]) and Best Supporting Actor/Actress awards ([30] and [31]). 1. Believing that only English language sources are acceptable in articles is not a common misconception among editors. 2. Best Supporting Actor/Actress categories have been unanimously kept in AfD's ([32] and [33]) and are among the least controversial award categories. 3. Both usernames have gone to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and asked to have the AVN Hall of Fame criteria removed from PORNBIO. There is no controversy over the AVN Hall of Fame criteria in PORNBIO and not a single user has agreed with Раціональне анархіст and Redban to have it removed. It is too big of a coincidence for two editors to share the same unpopular opinions and behave in the exact same disruptive manner (both users have started over a dozen AfD's each at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, many of them for porn stars who meet WP's notability guidelines). Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would be inconceivable that more than one person would ever disagree with you? Everyone's gotta be a sock, eh? Pax 16:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a WP policy against users removing comments from AfD? Specifically, comments made by other users? I'm asking because every time I see other users retract their own statements, ~~they cross it out like this~~ instead of erasing it. If users really can't remove their own comments, they certainly cannot remove other user's comments. My last comment above was removed by Раціональне анархіст but I reverted the edit. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's very rich: you revert an edit removing your personal attack while leaving, in the reverting edit comment, an assured assertion - then stipulate out loud (in the comment I am responding to right now) that you don't know one way or the other. You know what? I'm fine with leaving it in; I want everybody to see what you're up to. (In lieu of a warning on your talk page over combative personal attacks, consider it delivered here.) Pax 16:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a personal attack. You have voted delete in other AfD's and I haven't responded to your vote there. This is because you are entitled to your own opinion. What you are not entitled to is voting twice in an AfD under different usernames in order to try manipulating the outcome of the discussion. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you accuse me by insinuation of doing something I have not done. As the saying goes: put up or shut up. Pax 18:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only reason given for keeping is that we should not be "deleting every stub article we find", but since being a stub is not the reason given for deletion, that is irrelevant. As for merging, there is no clear answer to which article it should be merged to, but obviously there is nothing to stop anyone from independently adding suitable content to the relevant articles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Road[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability and of my first 100 results of my Google Search page for "brighton road croydon", the most reliable of which is a Croydon Guardian bellyaching about Lidl being the fourth supermarket to open on it in two years. (Morrisons has opened four branches in Croydon in six months.)

Being a long road may have been an indication of notability eight years ago, but our standards have improved significantly since. An alternative is to redirect to Sutton High Street#History. Laun chba ller 23:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~- There's a long road outside my house ..... Should it get an article too? ....~~ No evidence of notability (As an aside note It's amazing to see how times have changed since 2006). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to A23 road. Merging to Sutton is illogical as it doesn't run there. As I live on Brighton Road, the main M23 is also unofficially known as the Brighton Road but better redirect it to an A-road. aycliffe^talk 08:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Road has its origins in a horse route which originally went through Sutton before moving to Croydon. There is a chunk of information there about the road before it moved - albeit unsourced, A P Monblat - so it makes sense to redirect to where the information is. I am not expecting Sutton library to be open any time within the next week and a bit, but when it is open, I'll have a look.--Laun chba ller 20:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a further source and partly rewritten the information in Sutton High Street#History. Hopefully, it's a bit more useful now. A P Monblat (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In truth, the A217 is also known as the Brighton Road, however, the page in question is referring to the Croydon road, hence my reasoning to merge it with the A23 rather than anything else. aycliffe^talk 10:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The A217 is not exactly Brighton Road; I've just checked with Google Maps and the Sutton Brighton Road finishes at its junction with the A232 and with the rest of Sutton High Street, well after the A217 went in a different direction and became Belmont Rise. In my original prod, I had suggested converting into a disambiguation page. I thought I'd carried that suggestion into my AfD rationale but apparently not - would this be something you would think a good idea? The Croydon road does not appear to meet WP:GNG.--Laun chba ller 11:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would say it is. Bearing in mind there may be more "Brighton Roads" we don't know about. aycliffe^talk 14:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect as lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The "keepers" in the previous debate claimed notability as a Roman road, no source, and as an old London road (longevity ≠ notability). See Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways for actual standards. The A23 road road article has one unsourced mention of Brighton Road as newly renamed. --Bejnar (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a stub; it is capable of expansion. I cannot see any benefit in deleting the article. If we go around deleting every stub article we find, we make it very difficult to build an encyclopedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: The article may be capable of expansion (by listing further buildings along its course, for example), but is it capable of achieving notability under the guidelines? If so, how? See WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways --Bejnar (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Lavoie[edit]

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

Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Google and Proquest searches only come up with sources that have an interest in the written topic (i.e. press releases for speaking engagements). – Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also article is bordering on advertising -Drdisque (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. Hard to find independent sources. There were 20 to 30 cites in GS for some of the books, but doesn't seem like enough. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is stupid. Every Inclusive Education course in every teachers training degree at every university in the world cites this guy but the deletionist fascists insist on deletion. Richard Lavoie is notable. Ryan Albrey (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Younique Unit[edit]

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

This is a temporary S.M. Entertainment unit group that does not appear to have any notability. Random86 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Younique Unit does have quite a bit of YouTube views for "Maxstep", and has been noted on various news sites. Nonetheless, it's only a temporary unit group but more editors need to vote and decide on this (which is why my position of Delete is weak at this time). Tibbydibby (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – If necessary, add a sentence to each of their articles to say they were a member this group too. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another SM Entertainment one-off project group with no notability other than being part of SM Entertainment. Youtube views are easily manipulated and not an indication of notability unless they are exceptional. Song did not chart anywhere or was not released. All temporary members have their own pages, so (as already mentioned), just add a sentence to those articles. Plus, the EP it was on already has an article (though it had poor chart performance) that can cover all relevant information. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. non-notable temporary unit group SmileBlueJay97 talk 01:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forum for Equality[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG, a lot of dead references. Pishcal — ♣ 00:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dead links have been fixed, and I think the organization's involvement in the Louisiana Supreme Court Case, Forum for Equality v. New Orleans, and another more recent same-sex marriage case, both of which received national press attention, plus that they remain the only statewide LGBT organization in Louisiana makes them notable and a nationally known entity. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 05:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - A brief search yields an awful lot of sources: As one of the groups most actively working against Louisiana's gay marriage laws, many of the sources are much more about those cases than about the organization, and there are a number of other matters they've been involved with (or which happened to its chairman in connection to the group's activities) that have gained some attention. While fewer, the sources which deal with the group beyond that of a passing mention seem to amount to marginally more than enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you to Rhododendrites for evaluating available sources. I'd be more free to accept coverage of its cases as being about the organization, too. --do ncr am 01:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1PS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability, and article has no third-party reliable sources. Random86 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One digital single was released nearly a year ago. In kpop time, that's an eternity; the lack of subsequent releases does not bode well for this group. Despite a few articles in typical Korean gossip media (who report on anyone who merely exists), I don't really think this group passes notability requirements. This is too soon; if they release a physical single or album it can be reconsidered. Shinyang-i (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable Asdklf; (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got7 Asia Tour[edit]

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

This tour has not yet occurred, it has merely been announced, and this article seems to be mostly for WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The tour has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary media. There are no references listed. The tour has, at this time, no notability; nothing of significance has been written about it apart from its predicted existence. The article should be written after the tour has concluded, or at least is well underway and once it has received significant coverage independent of the artist, and there is something to actually say about it aside from it merely having had occurred. Keep in mind the artist's own websites and Korean online gossip sites (which is most of the Korean "entertainment" sites) do not meet the requirement of being either reliable or independent of the artists. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NTOUR is more stringent than one might think. Not sufficient coverage. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does does meet WP:NTOUR. --Random86 (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Air[edit]

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

Dictionary definition of a dubious word Tolstoyan at Heart (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Vrac (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NEO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Arnesen[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an activist, relying almost entirely on primary (self-penned content and/or the websites of organizations he's directly involved in) and unreliable (WordPress blogs) sources; the only publication that can possibly count as an acceptable source here is Huffington Post, and even that reference is to a blurb. No prejudice against recreation in the future if good sources can be provided, but primary and blog sourcing is never the way to get somebody into an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple more sources. I will try to find more, and encourage others to. He's an important figure in bisexual activism, so it would be nice to be able to have an article on him. 173.49.70.61 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to learn about the difference between a reliable source and a primary source if you think you "added" anything that improves the quality of sourcing at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sources do not establish notability sufficiently. Becky Sayles (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given the generally supportive stance of the US press to LGBT issues and causes, the lack of RS in this individual's case is indicative of non-notability.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ATTRAQT[edit]

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

Company with trivial importance. It is not on the main market of the London Stock Exchange, so that doesn't give notability. Refs are PR, some in disguise, or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recent AIM-listed company providing search/recommendation functionality to websites. As it is a recent rebrand, it is probably fairer to search on its previous name, Locayta. Highbeam returns various items, though they are routine announcements of firms adopting the software and then the rebranding. Overall, I am not finding the independent in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage such as [34][35][36][37] (there are more). These are all reliable sources, and all the coverage is what I would classify as in depth. Most cover the basic details of the company in addition to whatever event triggered the coverage. (Events being covered is itself significant enough to warrant notability as long as the coverage is in depth, incidentally.) Pinging @Lixxx235: who accepted this at AfC for further input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- thanks for the ping. I normally hate to !vote per ___, but I don't have time to do a proper investigation right now and ThaddeusB looks like he has it covered. Please ping me on further developments. --L235-Talk Ping when replying 04:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 21:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a source review indicates that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are sources, but they ares not independent, and give the feeling or promotionalsm .I dont thin this small company's made it yet, , but undoubtedly is hoping that g we will give them the increase in public recognition that they need, DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia anyone can edit and they are often sounding boards for negative issues so it doesn't make sense this article (or any article on Wikipedia) is only promotional in intent. If so they are taking a gamble because anyone can edit their article. Sometimes it's better not to have a Wikipedia article from a promotion perspective. Right now they don't have negative press but they may in the future. I don't worry too much about promotion because it's a double-edge sword (and in this case there are sources but have not looked at them closely). -- GreenC 13:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stuckism. Sandstein 20:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-anti-art[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Term lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources- a glossary mention and personal webpages do not satisfy WP:NAD policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a really a neologism as it's a fairly obvious compound of anti- and art. It seems easy to find more coverage in books such as The Boundaries of Modern Art. WP:NAD is not a reason to delete as that policy indicates that such titles ought to lead somewhere appropriate rather than being deleted. And it explicitly says that we should not delete pages just for being short stubs. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating deleting the article because it is a stub. I am advocating deletion because uncommon neologisms that are not backed by significant coverage in reliable sources goes against policy. Your reading of NAD is uncommon and not thorough. It explicitly states "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." What you just cited is exactly that- a book that mentions the term all of once. Even WP:WORDS says "Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non-, anti-, or -like to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms... do not lend undue weight to a point of view." Uncommon neologisms are and should certainly be deleted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is used. There are 5 references in the article. Please search for the term "anti-anti-art" in each of the 5 references that are found in the article. Altogether the 5 references allow the reader to know the significance of the term in the context of the activities of a group of artists called the "Stuckists". Its significance, not unlike some other terms, is very much rooted in a point in time. The Stuckists wrote a manifesto using the term "Anti-anti-art" as a title. There is another type of art that is called Conceptualism. It has enjoyed a lot of recognition. I think it could be said that the stance maintained by the "Stuckists" was in opposition to an artistic sensibility embodied in Conceptualism. "Heavily biased against Conceptualism and calling themselves "anti-anti-art," the Stuckists have written a number of manifestos attacking…" The article is only a stub but it represents a position in opposition to a type of sensibility that enjoys a lot of popularity in contemporary art (or at least it did the last time I looked). That opposition has probably been expressed using other language. But "anti-anti-art" expresses that sentiment succinctly. And it has been used to some extent as seen in the article's 5 references. One of the references is a web page called "Stuckism: Art Against Art Against Art". A quote from that page: "In the manifesto Anti-anti-art, the case is made that conceptual art is justified by the work of Marcel Duchamp, which is 'anti-art by intent and effect.' The contrast the Stuckists see is that 'Duchamp's work was a protest against the stale, unthinking artistic establishment of his day,' while 'The great (but wholly unintentional) irony of Post Modernism is that it is a direct equivalent of the conformist, unoriginal establishment that Duchamp attacked in the first place.'" I think this is simply a term used in the visual arts, expressing dislike for a prevalent and popular aesthetic sensibility. It may not ever achieve widespread use but its validity is attested to by the 5 reliable sources found at the bottom of the article. Aesthetics are not a simple thing in recent decades. An article on a term such as this at least provides a term for potential use in articulating positions in a hypothetical dialogue on the place of Conceptualism in the visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Stuckists' manifesto is not independent of the subject, since they are the ones coining the term. So the manifesto (posted on a personal webpage) as well as the Stuckists.com source can be rejected. Further, the other sources listed do not provide significant coverage for the term, only mentioning it or providing one or two sentences of explanation. One Guardian.com glossary listing and a mention on Artnet.com do not satisfy WP:GNG. "Potential use" is not what Wikipedia is about. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian.com doesn't really have a "glossary listing". There is a tongue-in-cheek section of that article titled "A handy YBA glossary". This isn't really a glossary. The glossary contains only 4 entries. The topic is esoteric and the Guardian is using a style of writing to introduce the uninitiated into the realm of the fine distinctions that devotees of contemporary art can be up in arms about. I think the term anti-anti-art is important. And I don't think an article on it violates any of our policies. We are not a bureaucracy. We are not bound by policy. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but we should use whatever means necessary to elucidate a topic. The Stuckists may not be independent of the topic but they are a lot of people. The idea embodied in the term anti-anti-art is an important idea. Stuckism was an international notion, signed onto by about 200 artists. Defining terms in the visual arts is not a simple matter and generally dictionary definitions do not suffice. Robert Atkins wrote a book called "ArtSpeak". See an article about that book here. In the course of defining a term (in the visual arts) one sometimes elucidates ideas that matter to devotees of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stuckism. It is their term and a discussion of it is also a discussion of them.Kitfoxxe (talk)
Merge to Stuckism. Only finding passing mentions in reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stuckism. Per above. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason my helpful addition of sources to the article was removed, so here they are again:

Just checked out NAD. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc." Anti-anti-art" is presumably a concept, and, if it isn't, then you had better delete the article on "anti-art" as one of your NADs as well.

Perhaps some rudimentary research would help. Google is a good place to start and has 134,000 results. They can't all be crufty (?) fans, surely:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&q=%22anti-anti-art%22+AND+stuckists&oq=%22anti-anti-art%22+AND+stuckists&gs_l=hp.3...2580.15927.0.16670.52.37.2.0.0.1.628.5287.0j8j7j4j1j1.21.0.msedr...0...1c.1.59.hp..43.9.2108.Gd9dDcGjuPY

Here's some that might help (or are they crufts in disguise?):

Small world? How art does the biz at the Turner Prize . . . Derry Journal [Derry (UK)] 10 Dec 2013. ...Charles Thompson of the "anti-anti art movement", the Stuckists, went a bit far

The Turner Prize: a bloated, contrived, luvvie-riddled waste of taxpayer's money Telegraph.co.uk [London] 04 Dec 2012. ...co-founder of the Stuckists, (the "anti-anti-art" international movement

The market in modern art is rotten to its core Telegraph.co.uk [London] 01 Oct 2012. ...their self-definitions is being anti-anti-art. It was Thomson who painted a

DON'T WORRY IT'S ONLY ART ; And according to the judges of the 2001 Turner Prize it's among the best in Britain. Rosie Millard charts the rise of the award and profiles this year's four shortlisted contenders: [FOREIGN Edition] Millard, Rosie. The Independent [London (UK)] 28 Oct 2001: 7. ...and Five Live. During the day, the Stuckists, an "anti- anti art movement", turn

The Stuckists: The First Remodernist Art Group - Page 49 books.google.co.uk/books?id=CpBPAAAAMAAJ Katherine Evans - 2000 - ‎Snippet view 9 Oct - 14 Nov 2000, ButtClub, Hamburg THE STUCKIST GROUP Philip Absolon, Billy Childish (Co-founder), Frances Castle, Sheila Clark MA, Eamon Everall Cert. ... Handy Hints 11.4.00, Anti-anti-art 1 1.4.00, Writing Manifesto 5.5.00 (pub.

The Boundaries of Modern Art - Page 69 books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1909421014 Richard Pooler - 2013 - ‎Preview So they named their movement Stuckism after her comment. They have issued several manifestos, the first being 'The Stuckists', and another being 'Remodernism'. Both criticised Postmodernism and aimed ... Another manifesto was 'anti-anti-art' which is self-explanatory, being 'for art!' It said, “Artists who don't paint aren't ...

Modern Art Invasion: Picasso, Duchamp, and the 1913 Armory ... books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=149300073X Elizabeth Lunday - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions ... U.K.,January 19, 2013). Billy Childish and Charles Thomson,“Anti-Anti-Art: The Spirit ofWhat Needs to Be Done,” The Hangman Bureau of Enquiry, ... Charles Thomson, “The Future of Art, Part 8: Charles Thomson, Founder Stuckist,”FAD, ...

Oh, and by the way, artnet was one of the major art news sites in the US while it was running — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpassingbyandforthehellofit (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Justpassingbyandforthehellofit (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Wikipedical (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What they seem to be saying is the anti-anti-art movement is the same as the Stuckists, good reason to merge the two articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stuckism. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Although a couple people are attesting that the subject has local notability and that sources exist to support it, the core policy of verifiability needs to be met in order to substantiate those claims of general notability, which is the primary rationale for deletion being offered by the experienced editors. slakr^\ talk / 21:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Winterson Richards[edit]

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

This seems to be the classic sort of biographical article about a local politician that WP:POLITICIAN notability criteria is designed to prevent. Richards is clearly a bright guy who has had an active career in local politics (the claim of being leader of the opposition on Cardiff Council is less impressive when wou consider he was the only Conservative councillor). Much of the biographical info is from a book that lists everyone that has stood for election in Wales since 1885 - in my view it would set a worrying precedent to create local politician articles based on books like these (negating the purpose of WP:POLITICIAN). I've lived in Cardiff for 30 years with a keen interest in politics and never heard of him! The question is then whether writing/contributing to several books in the 1990s meets WP:AUTHOR. It clearly doesn't at the moment, with the books being cited to the books themselves. I'd charitably go for a Weak delete myself (there's a chance of offline reviews of his books etc.) unless someone can provide at least one strong piece of evidence of general notability. Sionk (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote and posted the original article. Just to be clear, I am not the subject of the article or related to him or employed by him.
With all due respect to Sionk, his submission contains no hard data but consists largely of subjective personal opinion and verifiable errors of fact. First, he states that a principal source for this article is a book that ‘lists everyone’ who stood for election in Wales and he therefore fears a precedent. This is not so: the book in question, ‘Welsh Hustings’ by Ivor Thomas Rees, is confined to Parliamentary, European, and National Assembly candidates only, and is in any case used here only for biographical data, not as proof of notability. Second, Sionk remarks that Richards being Leader of the Opposition on Cardiff Council is no achievement because he was the only Conservative. In doing so, Sionk confuses two separate facts which are clearly differentiated in the article. Being the Leader of the Opposition on the pre-reorganisation City Council and the only representative his party on the post-reorganisation County Council are two separate roles on two separate local authorities. Third, Sionk writes dismissively of Richards ‘writing/contributing to several books in the 1990s.’ The implication that Richards has done nothing since is completely wrong. The fact is that Richards has been in print constantly since the 1990s, a very different matter. He currently has at least six titles available under his name, including four new ones in the last three years. All this is sourced and referenced in the article. Finally, Sionk’s comment that he has never heard of Richards is subjective and of no relevance because it gives us information about Sionk but no objective information at all about Richards. Indeed, it only begs the question how self-confessed ignorance of a subject can be considered a qualification for recommending deletion of an article on that subject?
Doubtless these errors were all made in good faith, but they do indicate that far less research went into Sionk’s criticism of the article than went into the original article itself, which I took some time and trouble to source and check.
As for the positive case for Richards’s notability, I was prompted to write the article because I was familiar with Richards’s work as a writer and because he was already mentioned by name in at least two other Wikipedia articles. His involvement in local politics many years ago is of secondary importance, a biographical detail it would have been wrong not to mention but not the reason I wrote.
In fact, I agree with the phrasing of Sionk’s original objection that being elected a councillor is not in itself sufficient notability. That said, a case could be made independently – and I stress that it is not the primary case I am making here – that Richards was more than just another councillor. Already mentioned by name as a Parliamentary candidate in another article, he was also the official leader of the opposition in a capital city and, later, the only representative of the governing party of the UK in any elected office in that capital city, as well as an important figure in Welsh local government reform and in his own community.
Richards’s notability as a writer rests on two books which have both been constantly in print for twenty years, and frequently reprinted and revised – a rare achievement for any writer and which few contemporary writers can match. Reference is made to the books themselves as sources because, of course, most editions contain lists of previous editions. The citation of the books as references is therefore correct, and indeed necessary. I do not have access to sales figures but we can safely assume no book remains constantly in print for twenty years unless there is demand and without selling a large number of copies over that time. Indeed, a simple Google search does seem to confirm that there are a lot of copies in circulation.
Finally, the article does attract an increasing number of visitors and has been sitting here quite happily for a number of years without any apparent concern. As Richards continues to publish so demand for the article seems to rise. I will submit to the judgment of Wikipedia, whatever it may be, and will not repost in the event of deletion. But, if that is the case, I suspect that there will be demand for a new article before long, and it would not be as well-researched and accurate as this one. Bubothe owl (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I live in Lisvane and know the subject very well, I feel it would be wrong to take a position on his ‘notability,’ but I feel I can help with Hirolovesswords’ point about secondary sources.
Richards is in fact very well documented in publicly available secondary sources, but, since his involvement in public life ended in 1999, and the first editions of the two books that have sold consistently for two decades were published before then, they are of course mainly on paper rather than online. This is a problem with Wikipedia in general – and I speak as a strong supporter of the Project – that it tends to ignore or undervalue subjects dating from before the time when everything is routinely put online and, conversely, to overemphasise things dating from the last few years. Richards was mentioned frequently in the local papers of record, the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo, as well as the now defunct Cardiff Independent and Cardiff Gem, which should be available at Cardiff Central Library. He was the subject of front-page stories and feature articles in the Western Mail, ‘the National Newspaper of Wales,’ on several occasions. Similarly, his first two books, the ones that have been in print ever since, were reviewed in a number of newspapers and magazines when first published, including the Western Mail. Anyone who wishes to challenge this can and should check it for themselves. To ignore history simply because it is not online is very dangerous.
It might also be helpful if I sort out Sionk’s confusion about Richards being Leader of the Opposition and sole representative of his party: the commonplace joke that he was Leader because he was the only member of the Opposition is only a joke. The fact is that he was Leader of the Opposition on the City Council when the Conservatives had at least a dozen councillors – I cannot recall the exact number off-hand – and were therefore the largest Opposition group, but they were famously wiped out in the election for the new County Council that replaced it, with Richards being the only Conservative elected. This event got national attention and was even mentioned at PMQs in the Commons. Since nine Liberal Democrats were elected at that election, they became the largest opposition group on the new County Council and their leader, Jenny, now Baroness, Randerson, therefore became Leader of the Opposition. So Richards was never Leader of the Opposition on the County, but he was on the City, where he led a definite group. The article is therefore correct. All this is in the Council records, probably also in Cardiff Central Library, should anyone wish to check.
Incidentally, Richards himself is ambivalent about the retention of the article but would positively welcome the removal of the reference to himself as a ‘politician.’ It is fifteen years since he was active in public life and he has no desire to return to it, and he did not describe himself as a ‘politician’ even when he was active.Mirandajenifer (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you know the subject well you can find out the details of the book reviews. Sources do not need to be online. If at least one of his books was widely reviewed he would probably meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk – I recall seeing a number of newspaper reviews in the 1990s, including the Western Mail, but it is obviously not the sort of thing one keeps to hand. I can only assure you that they exist. In any case, simply quoting reviews in the article runs the risk of it being accused of promotion. A quicker and more objective test is to do as Bubothe owl suggests and do a simple Google search to confirm that there are a lot of copies in circulation. In addition, simply clicking ‘sources: books’ at the top of this page confirms that his books have been translated into several languages – a much stronger objective proof of notability.Mirandajenifer (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your point of view), simply writing books which have been translated isn't proof of notability. On the other hand, if journalists or independent experts have reviewed/written about a person's creations, that is objective proof that they (and their work) is widely known (per WP:CREATIVE). I'll have to stick to my 'Weak delete' for now. Sionk (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk – You might recall that, about a week ago on your ‘Talk’ page, I suggested you obtain a copy of a recent edition of either of the two principal books in question, at least one of which should be available through Cardiff libraries, and check its print history. Have you been able to do that yet? Mirandajenifer (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand Wikipedia basics. Existence is not proof of importance. Sionk (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk – With very great respect, it is you who seems to misunderstand the basic point here. Any book which has been in print constantly for twenty years, reprinted and revised numerous times, and translated into several other languages is by definition notable. Evidence of all this has been presented to you, but you seem determined to ignore it. You have also been told that the book has been reviewed, even if, for reasons already stated, the evidence of this is not readily available. Incidentally, looking at other author pages, it is only infrequently that reviews are cited directly. Mirandajenifer (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To progress matters, I am able to confirm Richards was in fact reviewed in a large number of newspapers and magazines, of which I have been able to source and date about two dozen, including the Daily Telegraph of 10 August 1992, the Scotsman of 26 March 1994, the European of 1 April 1994, the South Wales Evening Post of 29 April 1992, and a number of leading provincial newspapers, which I trust it is not necessary for me to list here in full. Bubothe owl (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It is not sufficient for Mirandajenifer to claim that newspaper articles exist. We need sufficient information to allow other editors to find them (date, publication, article title) and we need to know what the subject of the article was. Bubothe owl gives more information, but still not the article titles or subject. Sources need to discuss the subject directly and in detail to establish that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. An article about, say, the cancelling of a new school that happens to mention, or even quote, a local councillor does not really establish notability of the councillor (although it might go towards establishing notability of the school). Bubothe owl says Richards was "reviewed" in these articles but fails to explain exactly what is meant by that. SpinningSpark 20:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I had no intention of taking a position on Richards’ ‘notability’ as such, in order to help resolve things, I feel obliged to take firm position on the questions of fact that have been raised.
At the time of my last post, I did not have the reviews I mentioned in passing. Since other contributors seemed to place a high value on them, I contacted the original publishers of both the two books that have been in print since the early 90s and have now obtained copies of the reviews to which Bubothe owl refers. I hope I can clarify matters in a way that meets all the – perfectly legitimate – concerns raised by Spinning Spark. ALL the reviews in question refer to those two books, ‘The Xenophobe’s Guide to the Welsh’ and the ‘Bluffer’s Guide to Small Business,’ and are titled accordingly – anyone interested in Richards’ political contributions can find them easily in the local papers I mentioned in my previous post, but they are not the main point under discussion here. In addition to the four references quoted by Bubothe owl, I have reviews from, among others, the (Newcastle) Journal dated 08.04.92 the (Plymouth) Western Evening Herald dated 17.03.94, the Guernsey Evening Press dated 22.04.92, the Clwyd Evening Leader dated 27.04.92., the Swindon Evening Advertiser dated 24.04.92, the East Anglian Daily Times 22.04.92, the Yorkshire Evening Press dated 13.04.92, the South Kent Citizen dated 15.04.92, the (Portsmouth) News undated 1992, the (Cumberland) Evening News and Star dated 09.04.92, the (Brighton) Evening Argus dated 16.04.92, Bella magazine undated 1992, the West Sussex County Times dated 01.05.92, and a sadly defunct publication called Girl About Town dated 27.07.92. These are just samples – there are a lot of others. Although most are provincial or local, they are provincial or local papers of record, and, since they come from localities all over the UK, together meet the criteria of ’widespread reviews.’ I hope this satisfies your point, Spinning Spark.Mirandajenifer (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you, you are trying to make a case for notability on the basis of books the subject has authored. Book reviews indicate notability of the book, not necessarily of the author. The relevant guideline for notability of authors is WP:AUTHOR. I'm not seeing that Richards meets any of the criteria listed there. SpinningSpark 00:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 of WP:AUTHOR says "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of ...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", which would apply if we knew more than vague details about reviews. From the list above, it seems that something was widely covered in the press in April 1992 and, if the something was created by Winters it would establish some notability for him. Sionk (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that routine new book reviews, by themselves, meet the criterion of "significant or well-known". Hundreds of new books are reviewed every day, most of which just disappear into obscurity. "The xenophobe's guide to the Welsh" was first published in 1994 and "Bluffer's Guide to Small Business" was first published in 1992 which exactly match the dates of the articles given by Mirandajenifer (although she doesn't say which is which). If there were reviews of them many years after publication, or some discussion that was more than routine reviewing, then maybe there would be something to that, but as it stands I think there is a better case for the notability of the books (both of which are still in print and have gone through more than one edition) than of the person. It is always possible that some of these reviews contain substantial biographical information on the author, but in the absence of more information my recommendation remains "weak delete". SpinningSpark 11:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our interpretations seem to part ways here. But I agree reviews need to be weighty. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NHH Symposium[edit]

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

Reads like promo and a coat rack. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a Norwegian student run conference that is held biannually in Bergen at Norwegian School of Economics. The information and sources to this page is gathered from the website, www.symposiet.no, and from newspaper articles, due to the fact that the students are responsible for the information and program of the conference and invite media to write about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrulsT90 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The GNG has five requirements. In my opinion, it does meet the demands of significant coverage. It is also realiable in the way that links and references are included, also from secondary sources. These are mainly in Norwegian, however. Also note that "there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English." About independancy, there are numerous articles about this conference, though not linked to the Wikipedia page. That is a quick fix.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AQ student run conference in a subject field, and the general rule is that these are not notable. I don;think the refs are either independent, given what was said above by TrulsT90. The contents, which is primarily a list of speakers, in unencyclopedic. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the usual school, or the usual conference. NHH is the top business school in Norway and the conference gets impressive participation...the lists of speakers are impressive to me. It's like having coverage of some group at Harvard University which roasts a top American each year (and which is clearly notable), but NHH Symposium is more serious and also more prominent in the corresponding nation.

Searching using Norwegian language yields sources, including the following which mostly look to me like they are primarily about the conference (although I admit i cannot read them and have not translated them):

in Dagens Næringsliv, a business newspaper, this November 19, 2014 article with picture of the symposium going on, and numerous other hits in that business newspaper.
in Bergensavisen, 2nd newspaper in Bergen, this article and more
in Bergens Tidende, 1st newspaper in Bergen, this article and this, and more
in Romerikes Blad, this article
in Aftenposten, the Oslo-based top newspaper in Norway, this article with mention of the symposium
in E24 Næringsliv, this article

For more, try:

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

--do ncr am 04:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, promotional tone to be addressed by editing, not deletion. No explanation in nomination how this article is "coat racking" at all (we're not talking here aboutt separate articles on each individual conference). And I really like the new logo designed by Cox, announced in January 2015. --do ncr am 04:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in major national media outlets. Promotional tone should be dealt with by editing, not through AfD. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs editing, not deleting. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The SuperHero Short Film[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Airing at the Kolkata Short Film Festival is not significant as the film festival's website declares it to be "non-competitive and open to all". No other claims of notability are made for this film, nor can any significant coverage be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:NFILM or any remotely reasonable notability standard. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches on Google turned up nothing what so ever. Cannot even verify the Film Festival showing which does not met notability. Spshu (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete under WP:TOOSOON. The Festival's schedule shows The Superhero by Tathagata Chatterjee screened on December 5 2014, and searching under its proper title does give some results.... but not enough to meet WP:NF. It is as very recent release and more coverage might come if it screens further. Allow undeletion of recreation if/when more and better coverage is forthcoming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akshararbol International School[edit]

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

Article about a school that is mostly sourced from the school's website. I was unable to find independent sources to establish notability of the school, only spammy database-like sites with no substantial information. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 02:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus.--Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can post some of the sources you used to establish that I will add them in to the article Hustlecat ^{do it!} 19:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Establish what? It's clearly a secondary school! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly established that there is a web page for the school, but Wikipedia articles must be based on verifiable secondary sources. Primary sources may be used to amplify, but are not sufficient for an article. See WP:PRIMARY--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that in the instance of secondary schools you are wrong. Proof of existence (which includes the school's own website) is sufficient for the article to be kept. This is a long-established principle. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If so, you'll easily be able to provide examples and/or link to policy. Thanks. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, while not policy seems to be at variance with your comment, which says that there does have to be an independent source.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Possible copyvio, no secondary sources available in English (and no one apparenrly interested in looking for them in other languages) and per the article and the linked school's web site, not even properly titled. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but redirect to correct name. Thanks to JTDale for the IB link--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since this is an IB school, if it's real it'll immediately be in the IB Databases. IB Database Entry. JT_dale^Talk~ 05:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the longstanding consensus as recorded at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that all verifiable secondary schools are notable. Here are two sources from The Hindu that verify the school's existence: here^Archive.org and here^Archive.org.
The first source says:
To offer the best in-class education to Chennai’s student community, Akshar Arbol International School (AAIS) has adapted its teaching methodologies to cater to each student’s interests, abilities and needs without diluting the academic syllabus. Authorised as the city’s first ‘IB Primary Years Programme World School’ by the IB board headquartered in Switzerland, the school aims to provide a firm foundation to their students.
The second source says:
It was a way of life in tribal communities where they would paint on walls or cloth using natural dyes. The introduction of paper led to introduction of the expression of self and taking folk art out of the communities,” explains Padma Srinath, Head of School, Akshar Arbol International School.
Cunard (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exists, per necro. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sennacherib. slakr^\ talk / 21:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sennacherib's campaign in Judah[edit]

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

This article is sourced with the Bible. There is not a single secondary source. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Bible refs,I found some credible sources:

http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1966-1/1966-1-01.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/2926387/Dating_the_Sennacheribs_Campaign_to_Judah

--Catlemur (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note – This was a malformed AfD discussion that was removed from the AfD log a few minutes after it was created on 22 June 2014 (diff). Its creator has endorsed deletion of the article on my talk page, so republishing the discussion. As such, the discussion's time begins as of this post. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment to rewrite by contributors who has access to WP:RS sources. The events occured 'but' the article is currently sourced only with references to the Bible: see Notes and the events didn't occur (of course) as explained in the Bible. One of the sources provided here above by Catlemur shows there is controversy among historians regarding the dates. The article doesn't talk about this. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your duplicate !vote above and rewrote the prefix to "comment"; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment in the discussion all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge/Redirect to Sennacherib#War with Judah - Previous rationale: The article currently uses the bible as its only external source. It also claims Wikipedia articles as sources, which is a serious no-no per WP:CIRCULAR. However, there are plenty of external sources, easily found through the Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches listed above. I've gone ahead and added a {{religious text primary}} tag to the article, but WP:AfD is not cleanup. --Stfg (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC), updated 14:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with WP:AfD is not clean up but at this stage we should blank completely the article. So it doesn't change much with a deletion. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Many readers coming to this article will want to know of the biblical version, and this article gives it. Statements that "such-and-such happened" needed changing to "the Bible states that such-and-such happened", but the Bible is then a legitimate source for such contextualized statements per WP:PRIMARY. And then other accounts needed covering too. However, the present article is a POV fork of Sennacherib#War with Judah, which is a balanced version giving both Sennacherib's and the Bible's accounts (and also, more briefly, mentioning Herodotus and Josephus). Rather than sorting out the POV and sourcing problems of the present article (and it's dismal prose), we should just redirect to the much more balanced version there. --Stfg (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nobody notified the article's creator. I have just done so. --Stfg (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- since there are extra-biblical sources, they should certainly be cited. However, I am not convinced that redirecting rather than merging is appropriate. There is a well-accepted practice of having a general article with sub-articles linked by a "main" template. Here we appear to have two sub-articles on two sieges. I may be that Sennacherib#War with Judah needs some merging here. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: The two articles are describing the same events -- those described in II Kings 18-19 and elsewhere. Of course, if there's anything useful to merge, then by all means merge it into Sennacherib#War with Judah, but the Sennacherib article is too small to justify a sub-article which, to be NPOV, would need to cover all the subsections of Sennacherib#War with Judah. The present article is clearly a POV fork. --Stfg (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since when did the Bible not become a source? Bearian (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: as far as I can see, nobody has claimed here that the Bible is not a source. But it's a primary source -- the background to that statement is in this and this TfD discussion. There are other sources, and they are covered better in the Sennacherib article of which this present one is a fork.--Stfg (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I commented rather than voted, offering an alternative solution for the views of others. I see no objection to merge, if there is anything to merge; and possibly there is not. The removal of Biblical references was certainly inappropriate. My POV gives a high place to the Bible, but at worst, its historical sections are entitled to as much credence as a source as any other chronicle from the ancient world. In its present form, it may have been compile 100-150 years after the events in question, but probably based on earlier chronicles that have not survived. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the wholesale removal of valid primary sources, pero, I have no objection to a merge here. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing needs work, but I'd be surprised if this can't survive as a standalone article. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A10 as duplicate article and redirect to the much better sourced, better written, and more detailed Sennacherib#War with Judah with no prejudice against spinning that material out into its own article. SpinningSpark 20:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I have no doubt whatsoever that for any story in the Bible, there is reams of secondary sourcing, analysis, and scholarship concerning it. That is the sort of source we should use here, not the primary source of the Bible itself. That said, Sennacherib#War_with_Judah is not so extensive that a breakout article is required. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sakuramichi[edit]

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

This song has not yet been released, but simply announced, and this article serves as WP:PROMO. Its predicted release is still two months away, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There has been no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as there is nothing yet to discuss about a song that no one's heard. Of the three sources listed, one is the artist's own website (self-promotion), one is from a Japanese article that is mostly about another topic, and the last is from Japan's Modelpress, which describes itself as "Japanese fashion and entertainment news for women". I'm not specifically familiar with this publication, but if it belongs to the "women's magazine" publication genre of Japan, then it is a tabloid. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON, if it's a notable single in the future then the article can re-appear. Tibbydibby (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's clearly WP:TOOSOON. --Random86 (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PlyCounter[edit]

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

Reliable sources are needed to establish the wp:Notability of the subject, but there are none. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Not even sure it asserts notability. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This product has been in the market for almost two years and is being used by chess players to notate games during tournaments. A competing product has an entry in wikipedia (Monroi). Here are some references monroi vs plycounter finding the right notation tool USCF approval letter PlyCounter product info MonRoi wikipedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodknight (talk • contribs) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Woodknight (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
- @Woodknight: It may be important and useful, but notability is a pretty specific thing on Wikipedia that boils down to whether or not a subject has received in depth coverage by reliable secondary sources. That it is used, implemented, allowed, etc. again may make it important but not notable. Articles in newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and reliable websites (the details of what is considered "reliable" are here), but not letters, sources produced by the product's creator, sources produced by anyone in a business relationship with the creator (e.g. to use the software in another product), self-published sources like most blogs, and so on. If none of these exist it may still be WP:TOOSOON. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the coverage needed for WP:GNG. The sources are not independent, not reliable (blogs), or don't show significant coverage.Jakejr (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Belgian colonial empire. slakr^\ talk / 21:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Africa[edit]

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

I think this should be deleted and redirected to Belgian colonial empire. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as creator. Like francafrique, the term "Belgian Africa" is sometimes used to describe the countries in central Africa which Belgium has particularly close diplomatic ties with. That these are (pretty much) her former colonies is neither here nor there. See here or, indeed, here where the term is used in an overtly modern (I.e. non-colonial) sense. Perhaps a disambiguation page is not needed, but a redirect to the empire page would strike me as quite prejudiced. Equally, much of the Belgian colonial empire page deals (in too much detail in my opinion) with Belgian colonies outside Africa and can potentially distort the focus but that's a bit peripheral. Basically, in my opinion, this is exactly the sort of page (almost a definition item) which is best served by a redirect. Perhaps the nom would like to clarify his/her argument somewhat? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Contrary to his belief this will not result in the article disappearing. Instead, the search term will lead to the otehr article, which also covers three minor possessions (and brief) elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've misunderstood my objection. It's not that the page will "disappear", but that it will link to something which only reflects part of its actual meaning. Personally, I'd rather a full deletion rather than a redirect for this reason. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I agree with editor Peterkingiron that the Belgian colonial empire article doesn't serve as a good redirect target, and that it overly emphasizes tiny non-African items. Note the Belgian colonial empire#Major possessions section is about the Belgian Africa area. How about edit the intro of that section to mention that the area is now sometimes known as Belgian Africa, and include mention of the current countries (as now in the Belgian Africa article, perhaps add a bit more about post-colony history in the section, and rename the section, and then use that as a target? --do ncr am 23:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Agree with above: we can cite the two references given here by Brigade Piron when adding the extra text as Doncram says. The target article isn't that unbalanced when you consider that the African section links to three main articles. In any case this can't stay as a disambiguation page, as it is not intended to distinguish between different uses of the page title; it has to be either a redirect or an independent, referenced article: Noyster (talk), 17:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo J Miller[edit]

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

I have tried but have been unable to verify the contents of this article to any reliable sources. The article purports to be about a musician who has co-produced and/or co-written some of the biggest hits of recent years. It says he was involved in The Man (Aloe Blacc song) but Allmusic shows no credit for Romeo J Miller. It says he was involved in Lil Wayne's How to Love but Allmusic shows no credit for Romeo J Miller. It is similar for the other credits the article indicates. A songwriter this successful would likely have some mentions in established newspapers or music magazines but I cannot find any at all. New user MsRhiney-James offered many links at my talk page but there is nothing I see there that meets reliable-source standards; they are various blogs and user-generated content. I welcome other opinions about them from other Wikipedia editors.

In the interests of full disclosure of the background here, an IP user first identified a possible issue to me in October; see User talk:Paul Erik/Archive 10#Fake Producer/ Writer. This article has previously been deleted by me and I have blocked suspected sock puppets of Andreharrell who have been involved in repeatedly recreating this article (also at Romeo J Miller - Music Producer & Songwriter), for promotional purposes as noted at User talk:SonyAtvPub. But the main issue in my view is not the promotional edits but the lack of WP:V and WP:N support. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - as possible hoax. Especially concerning is the lack of sources, and a Google search turned up nothing reliable. I doubt seriously that he meets general notability guidelines. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Romeo, Romeo. Wherefore art thou Romeo [in Wikipedia]? Delete as a likely hoax. Contrary to the second sentence in the article, he is not listed among the 2015 Grammy nominees,[38] Not seeing anything that satisfies GNG either. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, especially since new years seem to be popping up to create it now. Wizardman 00:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celluloid Souls[edit]

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

This appears to be a short-film by a non-notable Canadian film maker and does not pass WP:NOTABILITY and is intended to simply promote the individual. There is one external reference to the movie. The article mentions the film was screened at the graduation show of Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design and screened at two other film festivals. There are no critical reviews of the film and just one independent third party source. Neither the director, whose own Wikipedia article I have nominated for deletion per WP:NOTADVERTISING, appears notable, nor do any individuals involved with the film. Additionally, Zoran75 is the confirmed Wikipedia account of Mr. Dragelj by his own admission. The account created this article as well a number of other articles of his work, which have been deleted for simply promoting Mr. Dragelj and failing to meet WP: NOTABILITY. I eat BC Fish (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing significant coverage. NickCT (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search turns up nothing reliable (IMDb does not establish notability). And, there is an obvious conflict of interest here. Nominator lays it out quite clearly. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celluloid Souls is a short award winning film that played internationally at some most prominent film festivals (Toronto Worldwide Short Film Festival and Clermont-Ferrand Short Film Festival just to mention the few festivals) and garnered an international distribution from Los Angeles distribution. If you need more info please feel free to contact me. Thanks Zoran75 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoran75: Lots of films show at festivals, and simply screening is not that same as notable. What award did the film receive? What coverage, commentary, reviews, or analysis did it receive in independent reliable sources? Please read WP:NF and tell us how it meets those inclusion criteria? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Zoran, I will attempt to lay out to you as clearly as possible. WP:NOTABILITY is a key element of Wikipedia. You must be notable as deemed by significant third party sources, not because you believe you are. You have largely been the only editor who has edited the articles related to Celluloid Souls save for those that that have added minor changes such as categories. The film was released in 1997 and has 75 views on Youtube since you posted it in April 2007. This means you are averaging 10 views a year (two of which are my own in fact). This clearly does not qualify it as notable. Also, as a useful tip, use the 4 tildes (~) at the end of your comment rather than at the beginning, as you would in an "offline signature". I eat BC Fish (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At this point, the consensus is that the article does not satisfy our notability policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Dragelj[edit]

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

The subject appears to be a non-notable film maker in Canada. The article was created in 2005 by User:Zoran75 who has admitted to being Zoran Dragelj here after contesting WP:PROD. The article has gone through a number of deletions previously. User: Robth deleted the article on Sept 16, 2008 due to copyright violations. User:Tone delete the article on March 7, 2008 for G11: Blatant Advertising. User:Ronhjones deleted it once more Dec 7, 2014 citing "Expired PROD, concern was: Not a notable person, page is promotional/operating like his resume). After Zoran75 contested PROD, Ronhjones restored the article in question on December 25, 2014. (Deletion log for all actions). The main contributor to the article has been Zoran75 and there appear to be few reputable sources concerning his art work. His talk page indicates that he has had a number of articles deleted in relation to his work. I would argue that this article clearly violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. Based on his edit history, Zoran75 appears to be a single-purpose account aimed at promoting Mr. Dragelj's career. I eat BC Fish (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I restored it as a contested PROD, it's fitting that it should then come here. This clearly shows it's an autobiography. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing significant coverage. Article created by a WP:SPA. This is likely WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIO. NickCT (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability guidelines. Not reliable sources found in a Google search. Appears to be an autobiography with an obvious conflict of interest here. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It came to my attention that you are proposing to have wiki page, Zoran Dragelj deleted. It is stated that that I am "using it as a resume" and "Not a notable person, page is promotional/operating like his resume". From the info that was posted on that page it was noted that I am well established person in my field of work (both in video/cinema and visual arts) not only in my native Canada but worldwide, as well published and my work is exhibited internationally.

All my information is verifiable and well documented. Also in May 2009, I was elected as the first Alumni Association representative on the Emily Carr University Senate. I am currently serving my second term. I would like to share that my films and videos are distributed by La Videotheque Nomade Distribution in Brussels, archived with Europeana, the European Union’s virtual library for the preservations of cultural heritage, archived with GAMA (Gateway to Archives of Media Art) network and is featured in TransMediale’s (Berlin) permanent collection.

I would appreciate if you would consider Zoran Dragelj wiki page along with Celluloid Souls, and Aboriginal Kaleidoscope (especially this retrospective since it was first of it's kind internationally and it was significant for First Nations video and film artist) as it is keeping everyone working with me informed on all. Happy New Year, Yours Sincerely, Zoran

Here is a brief overview of my establishments: Education: 1993-97 Emily Carr Institute of Art & Design, Fine Arts diploma Film & Video 1998 Canadian Cinematography Workshop & Panavision Camera Course;1997 Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television, National Apprenticeship Program; 1993 Ailanthus Performing Center, Don Hunter, CSC Cinematography mentorship; 1992-93 Vancouver Art Gallery, Student Curator Program Selected Exhibits: 2014 20th Independent Arts Festival, Belgium; 2013 Contemporary Art Festival, Venice; Empty Space Project, Penn Station, NYC;2012 Retrospective, International Multimedia Festival, Myanmar;2011 Retrospective, Kulturhuset, Stockholm;2010 Absence of Art Gallery, Berlin; 2008 Optical Allusions, Pacific Cinematheque;2006 Retrospectives:Brunel University of West London, UK; Vierkante Zaal, Belgium/Holland;2005 Retrospective, Prato Gallery, Florence, Emily Carr Alumni Exhibition 80th Anniversary;2000 Cineworks Twenty Years of Independent Filmmaking in B.C. Grants/Awards/Scholarships:Canada Council Travel Grant (2014,2008,2005,2001);BC Arts Council Travel Grant (2005);Outreach Program: Canada Council Travel Grant (2004,2000);2002 BravoFACT video grant;1999 National Film Board grant;1997 Cascadia Festival Excellence Award;1996 Joseph Golland Up-and-Coming Filmmaker Award, ACTRA Curation/Workshops Created:Independent Showcase, toured Europe (2008,2004,2001);Aboriginal Kaleidoscope, toured Europe (2005,2000,1998);1998 Independent production workshop (Chapters), Crofton House School video instructor; 1997 Steveston Art Connection animation instructor; 1992-93 Then & Now, Vancouver Art Gallery Juries/Panels/Artist Talks:winning artist featurette, Renderyard online (2011,2009); 2011 Emily Carr Grad Show & Degree Exhibition Awards Juror, Saatchi Online Artist panelist;2003 film panelist, 28th Vrnjačka Banja Festival, Serbia;1997 King George Secondary Alumni Drama mentor Collaborations/Participations:2010-14 Cultch & Ignite Youth Festival;2009-15 Two-term Emily Carr Alumni Senator;1996-97 performance artists Tagny Duff; John G. Boehme; 1995 Judith Marcuse’s The Kiss Project Selected Press: 2012 Made In Canada documentary: profile; 2005 Gehman & Reinke, The Sharpest Point: Animation at the End of Cinema,YYZ Books; Rosso Fiorentino, Italy; Diario magazine, Flash Art magazine, Italy if you may require more info, please let me know and I will gladly send you all my CV and bio info. Zoran75 (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Zoran, I will attempt to lay out to you as clearly as possible. As others have said, this reads like a resume since you've basically provided it to us word for word. WP:NOTABILITY is a key element of Wikipedia. You must be notable as deemed by significant third party sources, not because you believe you are. You have largely been the only editor who has edited the articles related to Zoran Dragelj, save for those that that have added minor changes such as categories. Given that you created this article in 2005 and have repeatedly attempted to stop its deletion, without anyone else contesting this deletion, should suggest to you that you do not in fact meet WP:N. For instance, your film Celluloid Souls, released in 1997 (which also has been nominated for deletion here) has 75 views on Youtube since you posted it in April 2007. This means you are averaging 10 views a year (two of which are my own in fact). This clearly does not qualify it as notable. Also, as a useful tip, use the 4 tildes (~) at the end of your comment rather than at the beginning, as you would in an "offline signature". I eat BC Fish (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Celluloid Souls was only recently added on YouTube as it is still in distribution via a number of theatrical and TV distributors (both in North America and Internationally) as well on couple other web streaming sites. All information provided is third party source and verifiable, nothing was made up by myself. Yes I have edited most of the info cause I wanted to keep it concise and to the point without any bias. My intention was never to keep Wikipedia page as a resume since I have LinkedIn page for it, just to present progress and developments to the international galleries, academia, exhibition and lecture halls where I am invited to present and discuss about my work. If you may require more info and insight what film retrospectives are, please let me know and I will gladly send you all my CV and bio information cause being archived with Europeana, the European Union’s virtual library for the preservations of cultural heritage, archived with GAMA (Gateway to Archives of Media Art) network and is featured in TransMediale’s (Berlin) permanent collection, along with citation in two books, one art film documentary is not a fluke, it's hard work for over 20 plus years in the field.Zoran75 (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "My intention was never to keep Wikipedia page as a resume since I have LinkedIn page for it, just to present progress and developments to the international galleries, academia, exhibition and lecture halls where I am invited to present and discuss about my work." - I think that is a useful endeavour but one for which Wikipedia is ill-suited. Wikipedia is not to be used as as an advertisement tool. I would suggest having your own website where you can provide such information for parties that are interested in it. While I congratulate you on your successful career, having a successful career is itself not particularly notable. Otherwise, every PEng, doctor, realtor or accountant with 20 years of experience would qualify for a Wikipedia article. In addition, your claim that the Celluloid Souls was only recently added to YouTube seems to significantly stretch the meaning of recently. It was added on April 15, 2007 to YouTube and has 78 views (it had 73 when I first clicked on it yesterday, and I've now clicked on it several times just to provide this information). In total, since your YouTube account was created on March 6, 2006 you have 26 subscribers who have viewed your entire selection of videos a combined 22,451 times. Given that short films appear to be your main interest, such numbers are extremely low to qualify for WP:N, especially given that the content is free and the films quite short. I have made my points several times. I am going to leave this discussion and debate to others in the Wikipedia community who are more experienced and informed on these matters. Cheers -- I eat BC Fish (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Zoran is not completely below the radar as some media has taken note. I did find THIS, but one media article does not a notability establish. @Zoran75: while your personal accomplishments are laudable, Wikipedia is not a who's who, nor a place to promote yourself. Read WP:COI and the related essay WP:Wikipedia is not about YOU. If your displayed works themselves receive commentary and analysis in independent reliable sources, you may be able to establish notability under WP:CREATIVE. If the purported awards are major enough, you may be able to establish notability under WP:ANYBIO... BUT Wikipedia is not a place to host your resume nor every moment of your life. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable source coverage. Simple existence is not an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia; notability is a factor of media coverage. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a properly sourced article can be written, but we are not a public relations database on which anybody is entitled to post an article about themselves without passing our inclusion and sourcing rules. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete , the lack of notability, along with the lack of RS, is unfortunately compounded by the mass of trivia in the article. Pincrete (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red alert (Star Trek)[edit]

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

Had been previously prodded. Long flagged for improvement with no development. Lacks assertion of real-world notability and references to third-party sources. I'd wondered whether Star Trek, perchance, had coined the phrase, but alas no. --EEMIV (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable or remarkable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Lacks assertion of notability. Unremarkable, to say the least. Except to these people. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of real-world context is particularly troublesome, and as much of a Trek fan as I am I'm having a hard time imagining that this particular facet of the franchise has garnered much attention. DonIago (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Doniago. Miyagawa (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Doniago points out, it lacks assertion of notability outside of Star Trek in a significant manner; I've gone and done a quick check for any additional coverage through ProQuest and academic databases and found nothing that warrants deeper searching. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Create new section in Cultural influence of Star Trek and merge into it.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any cited evidence of any cultural influence by this term/subject. Heck, not even an uncited claim. This is all just in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cape[edit]

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

This guy is completely unknown and it seems like he has written his own biography for PR purposes. Simpythegimpy (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep many of the references are poor quality blogs, some refs don't even mention cape, but I found two refs that appear to be legit reviews. Wayne Jayes (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 21:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overly promotional article refbombed with bad sources. Blogs, primary, listings, readers review, facebook. Cape lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Don't know what reviews Wayne is referring to but I didn't find any good ones. Found better coverage for a New Zealand Chris Cape. Wikipedia is not for self promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP:SPAs, the lack of hits, the very few links to this page...I b elieve he fails notability.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stoicheia[edit]

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

Does not seem to satisfy WP:PRODUCT. Article furthermore does not assert notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 21:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software/hardware article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage. There is this synthtopia article but they accept user submitted content.Dialectric (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lucas Anthony[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT - this person's only claim to fame is that he was a suicid bomber who killed him self and 13 others. Also fails notability guidelines under WP:MILPEOPLE as he was not a member of a state military. The incident itself might pass notability (14 deaths) and warrant an article in which case this individual's biographical info could be included in that article. Cossde (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2014 (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/2014 December 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 21:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: perhaps it would be possible to merge/redirect to the Black July article? Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article says he died on 15 July, not as part of the 23 July attack. Here's a more useful ref than the three cited: [39] It identifies Anthony with Seelan and supports the story of his death, but seems to doubt that this death was the trigger for the Black July events. Anyway, "notability" would not arise from his death or its (disputed) results but from having been a "close associate" of the LTTE leader and one of his "closet (sic) friends", but this alone would fail on the "notability is not inherited" principle. If we can't find more substance about any "notable" deeds during his life then the article would have little value: Noyster (talk), 15:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Online High School[edit]

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

No indications of notability, no references other than a primary source. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 21:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 21:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is no independent coverage of this school listed in the article so it doesn't meet the requirements listed at WP:GNG.75.150.214.113 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Running Wild (band). No quorum, but contested motion to redirect (as a worthwhile search term) is sufficiently reasonable, and now apparently uncontested. czar ⨹ 22:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Revivalry – A Tribute to Running Wild[edit]

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

Non-notable album. No refs, no claim of notability. Doesn't appear to have charted. Conversion to redirect twice reverted. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) @ 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 21:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Fine[edit]

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

Does not appear to have met the notability threshold outlined at WP:AUTHOR, as her most notable work (Anew novel) itself does not appear notable, and most press received is from her website or from non-notable blogs. —Eustress 17:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All metrics indicate she sells a lot of books, more than typical for authors that show up at AfD. Unfortunately I can't translate that into concrete evidence of notability because the reviews, as noted by the nom, are from blogs. It looks like a case of someone who needs a good publisher, on the threshold of mainstream recognition but still in the fan supported phase. -- GreenC 15:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've removed all of the non-usable blog sources, which pretty much decimated the article to a stub. None of the awards are notable enough to give notability and it also doesn't help that ForeWard Reviews is very much the epitome of a vanity award publication. If anyone is curious about the original state of the article, they can find it here. I am finding some actual usable sources, so that's why I wanted to clean out the non-usable sources - I didn't want any confusion over what could or couldn't be a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search hits started somewhat promisingly with a hit from USA Today, but upon looking at the source I found that it was actually an article written by Fine and not about Fine. I'd thought that there were some non-blog reviews out there, but those didn't surface like I thought they would. Unfortunately this is one of those cases where someone is popular, but that popularity never translated into coverage in reliable sources, which is ultimately what we need to show notability. I'd also argue that the original state of the article is pretty much why most people argue that COI/paid editors should not create pages outside of AfC (as the username implies that they are a marketing company), as the article was almost completely sourced by primary and non-usable blog sources. The only usable source is the Valley Lifestyles magazine article- the other two I just left on there to source the awards, neither of which are actually the type that would give notability because one is from a vanity review website (ForeWard will give awards but then charge the authors for the ability to put the award stickers on their books, plus they run a pay review wing) and the other is from a convention that would be considered non-notable as far as Wikipedia's guidelines are considered. (Although it does seem amazing.) I just can't see where Fine currently passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this point in time. She's popular enough in the blogosphere, but being popular just isn't enough on here. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme Amatnecks[edit]

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

Self-biography of a musician with no indication of notability as a composer or as a conductor, fails WP:NMG and does not present enough coverage by reliable sources. The article was entirely written based on press releases, media articles which cite him only trivilly if at all and an unknown website called www.arschorus.com. On the top of that, the article has lots of original research. Lechatjaune (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After three weeks of discussion, it seems unlikely that relisting again will have a benefit. The consensus is certainly more in favour of keeping, although policy-based arguments are somewhat lacking. Michig (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certance[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No substantial references provided.Please add references if notable Lakun.patra (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This was a historically notable company, as the final form of Seagate's tape drive business. Seagate was one of 3 creators of the major tape format (LTO) and for 3 years this company was the worldwide market leader in shipments of tape drives. That is from an archive of the company's About page, which I just added. There was also one cite on the acquisition by Quantum. Unfortunately Certance's history-of-the-company page was never archived and is now gone. But that information may still be available elsewhere. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Survivor of major company. WP covers this area exhaustively. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) @ 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carvana[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines or may be WP:TOOSOON. No references provided. Google search did not provide anything substantial. Please add references if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing Nomination - Will ask for a consensus for a merge with DriveTime. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Debate has been listed since 13:52, 16 December 2014 and has been relisted twice. (non-admin closure) MJ94 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auction Co.[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No references provided. Google search did not provide anything substantial. Please add references if notable. May also be merged to eBay. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add some references and text. This company has leaked +10M(iirc) S.Korean people's private data (such as Phone no., Social Security Number (of Korea), Home address, etc few years ago. (not sure if independant page exists or not) — Revi 16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated a bit. Has references now, Keep. — Revi 13:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Revi but someone who knows korean only can verify whether they truly signify something about the company or not. Moreover there is nothing much about the company in the article. It just says about being acquired by ebay and an Information security breach which was turned down by a court. But these things are referenced in korean. Can you source some articles in English if possible? Moreover this is not WP:NEWSRELEASE so this article might need cleanup and major rewrite to comply with wikipedia standards.Lakun.patra (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 21:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is most likely auction.co.kr. It is a major online retailer in South Korea similar to GMarket. Obviously, the article as written is not acceptable, but this is most definitely a notable company within Korea. Outside of Korea, I don't really know. Nearly all information will be in Korean only, probably. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Muhammad Maharvi[edit]

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

Poorly Sourced Duplicate of Muhammad Maharvi Bosstopher (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I just realised I'm an idiot and could have merged this myself. I request that this Afd be closed as I wish to withdraw it.Bosstopher (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (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/2014 December 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spout) @ 21:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JourneyEd. (I will say however this shouldn't of been relisted once let alone twice - Anyway nom should've been WP:BOLD and Merged himself and or started a discussion on both talkpages.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Superstore[edit]

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

No references presences although the not referenced tag was placed in 2010. May also be merged to JourneyEd if has something of importance. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge into parent company as usual in such cases, and as suggested by the nom; there was no need to bring this here . DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 21:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lanner Inc.[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:CORP. Search on Google News turns up only one result. Darylgolden^(talk) 06:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 21:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 21:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a publicly traded company, so there will exist analyst reports, news coverage of its stock issues, financings, etc. Its coverage has not been properly searched for, i am guessing. Try also searching under subsidiary names given in the article already:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), the USA subsidiary name, located in Fremont, California

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), for the Canada subsidiary located in Mississauga, Ontario

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

--do ncr am 17:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kainat Soomro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. The article is probably harming the subject because it stands in the way of her moving on in life, and also makes it difficult for the rapists to move on. The girl is probably at a marriageable age, or recently married, and this article here could be particularly problematic now. The rapists being unable to move on means this article creates greater risk of harm for the girl. Some recent blankings of the article may be due to the reasons described, and these blankings were what prompted me to contemplate the reasons for blankings, and propose this article for deletion. The girl may not be able to make her case here because she may not know the process, or may not have proper internet access, or whatever. So, it is not good to expect them to make their case for us to see their problem with this article. We should see their problems on our own and decide accordingly. OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (utter) @ 21:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The suggested reasons for deletion are speculative, and there's been continuing coverage. Here are articles from March 2014 [40], October 2014 [41], and November 2014 [42] about the current status of her case, and her continuing advocacy, despite her bad health. This December she went to Oslo for Malala Yousufzai's Nobel Prize ceremony, at Malala's invitation. [43] --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my concerns have been shown to be unfounded, particularly through the last two links. I would like to withdraw the AFD, but would support deletion if the subject wants this article deleted any time in future. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per the recent media coverage and rationale given above by Arxiloxos. Fai zan 08:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination czar ⨹ 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tu'i Tonga Fefine[edit]

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

Verification search shows many sources, but it is ambiguous if they significantly cover the subject or if they are reliable at all. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (utter) @ 21:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect or keep Sorry to be a last-minute addition here, but even from the small sniopet I can see [44] is reliable enough to suggest that there is some verifiability to the title, [45] verifies who abolished the title, and [46] looks like it's reliable and signficant coverage. There's enough there I expect it's notable, it might not be, either way, combined coverage might have some advantages, but I do think, from what is admittedly a short review, that the title at least warrants a redirect and some content. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination czar ⨹ 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maibec[edit]

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

Article about a company, relying exclusively on primary sources and unreliable sources except for two WP:CIRCULAR references which I've already stripped, which just demonstrates existence and fails to make a claim of notability strong enough to get it past WP:CORP. As always, Wikipedia is not a PR database on which any company is entitled to have an article just because it exists — no prejudice against recreation in the future if good sources can be added about it, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. New article needing improvement, but already sufficient notability has been established. #199 of top 500 Quebec enterprises... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 21:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 05:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margarit Abadjiev[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 21:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 21:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mindanao Insider Daily[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 21:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete article unreferenced and makes no claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Digital[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No references provided. Google search did not provide anything substantial. Please add references if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed an inappropriately detailed product list. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 21:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is not appropriate for nominators to speculate about notability. Notability research should be done WP:BEFORE nomination. Subject appears to be notible - see [47] and [48] for instance. ~KvnG 02:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KvnG but is it enough? The 1st link you shared is only a passing reference that it is sued by MPEG LA and the 2nd reference you have mentioned give more info about "ApeXtreme" rather than Apex. The only thing it says about Apex is that "Unfortunately, Apex wasn't able to bring it to market". That's all. Please mention if any references are present which has WP:DEPTH. I might be wrong if the references provided by you suffice Coredepth or not. So let the AFD run its course so that others can jugde.Thank You.Lakun.patra (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it is enough. The links I provided were examples. I found a total 230 news hits on Apex Digital at HighBeam Research. I assumed based on this and the language in your deletion reason that you had not researched notability before nominating. Was this a bad assumption? ~KvnG 16:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources aplenty: New York Times, Wired, LA Times, CNN... May be worth noting that it was the best selling DVD player in the USA (don't know how far its reach was) for a while, but that's just me saying that -- the sources speak for themselves. PS: These were available in the first several pages of google hits. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing Nomination as several references are there to prove that the article is notable.Lakun.patra (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cavium. czar ⨹ 21:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Semiconductor[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No references provided. Google search did not provide anything substantial. Please add references if notable. May also be merged to Cavium Networks Lakun.patra (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cavium. One line in the Acquisitions tables (with EE Times cite) should be enough. I fixed the dead link to their old company overview, which described their chips = video and media processing SoCs. But there is no evidence at Cavium website that they are making those kind of chips now, and very little on Google except that it got acquired. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 21:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough significant coverage in news. Cavium article is also problematic while their is some what more coverage still may not have significant coverage there. Spshu (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cavium. Could not establish independent notability for Celestial Semiconductor. ~KvnG 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brush Bands[edit]

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

Doesn't establish nobility or cite any third-party sources. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 20:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 20:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any news source even mentioning this group via google. Spshu (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability, but a redirect to Charles_F._Brush_High_School#Clubs_.26_Organizations, where the topic is mentioned in ways that probably need some editing down, would be ... okay. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 21:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AccDC[edit]

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

Articles author has conflict of interest as the developer of the subject, article lacks 3rd party sources and is not written in an encyclopedic fasion, rather as an advertisement or manual. Article previously proposed for deletion twice, each time cleared of the proposal by the original author. David Condrey ^{log talk} 22:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 20:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Seems not to have any significant news coverage, so does not meet standard notability. Spshu (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable per nom. A search turns up nothing, and the article doesn't have enough to support notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://fortune.com/2014/12/29/a-liquid-bandage-for-every-pocket/

[2] ttp://www.bloomberg.com/video/vetigel-the-band-aid-of-the-future-stops-bleeding-instantly-PaIvLxjcS66F5IWO1SsKtA.html

[1]

[2]