Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 January	2 February >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring force[edit]

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

It was created in 2006. For approximately 8 years it has not been referenced, ever. It is hardly monitored and no one has made the effort to reference it at all, making it very hard to believe that it is of high importance and that it is reliable or believable. I may not be highly educated in the physics world but this doesn't seem to be legitimate. SilentDan297 talk 23:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important concept. It would be better expanded than deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The nomination does not observe WP:BEFORE. Critical concept in physics, in mathematics, and in such fields as musical instrument design, and covered in depth in physics textbooks in the section about harmonic motion. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. Edison (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a reason why this is marked as "stub-class, high importance". The article needs work, but the concept is highly notable. — HHHIPPO 10:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's concerns about sourcing and general neglect of the article isn't untrue, but the subject is notable overall as Edison makes clear.LM2000 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And eventually do something with the article. High importance for a good reason even if neglected. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to simple harmonic motion if there's no example of its use outside harmonic motion. We can re-split into Restoring force in the extremely unlikely case that the content about restoring force gets greatly expanded and the simple harmonic motion article gets too long as a consequence. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:51, 5 February 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) 02:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Sushi[edit]

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

This article is a cross between advertising for the restaurant chain, and advocacy for a cause. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. Its presentation is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets wp:GNG based on the sources, and isn't bad enough to be a candidate for TNT. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What part of GNG is it not meeting? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 5 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ebn-E-Batuta[edit]

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

Article about an unreleased ~~short~~(see comment below) film, posted by its director and writer who in the last couple of days has been spamming Wikipedia with articles about himself, his company and his colleagues, all speedied or PRODded (see User talk:Varunmiddha for all the warnings and notices). Wikipedia is not here to provide filmmakers with a platform for advance publicity.

Conflict of interest and promotional intent are not directly reasons for deletion, but they should make us look very hard at the independent evidence for notability, and I do not see it here - there is not significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. (Warning about the references to starblockbuster.com - the document takes for ever to load, and I found no way to get rid of it but closing the browser tab).

Normally we might consider userfying, but this article ought to be written, when the time is right, by someone independent, so I recommend delete and, if the film is in due course released and gathers enough critical comment to meet WP:NFILM, let someone else write about it. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might require a salting since the editor has already started re-adding various pages to Wikipedia. I've warned him against re-adding the articles and mentioned that this can be seen as spam, which leads to permanent or temporary blocking, so let's hope that this will prevent that. In any case, there just isn't any coverage out there to really merit an article for this film at this point in time. It might gain coverage at some point in the future, but right now the coverage just isn't there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur fully with the reasoning of the nominator and Tokyogirl79. Safiel (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: I have struck the word "short". I had misread 28:53 as the length of the film, but it is the length of the soundtrack album. That does not affect my recommendation. JohnCD (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt clear and obvious COI and spam issues.LM2000 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt and possibly take the user to wp:ANI Spammety spam. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the user needs to be taken to ANI just yet. I've given him a warning and he seems to have stopped re-creating articles for the time being, but if he starts up again then I'll likely block him myself. Most of the warnings he's received on his talk page has been for the edits he made prior to the note I've left him, so I want to wait to see what his actions are from this point on since he seems to have heeded the warning for the most part. He did remove the AfD tags, but he hasn't done it again since the warning, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt since he does seem to listen to the warnings. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt WP:Promotion Anup Mehra ^✈ 20:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and just close now, consensus is clear, the nom provided clear reasoning. Just another page used to advertise for something. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, this needs to be removed from mainspace promptly as per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PROMO. If there were any reliable sources, this would be a candidate for Incubation via Draftspace. But most of the citations are to youtube. I tried to locate the starblockbuster.com reference without success. Bing doesn't have it at all, and the Google cache shows on my browser as an empty page. Just trying to find info on starblockbuster.com did not lead to anything useful. There is an entry for the topic on imdb, so it doesn't seem likely that the topic is a hoax. Wikipedia does not need to predict the future, we can wait for it, which in this case is a couple of weeks after 14 April 2014. Unscintillating (talk) 02:07, 5 February 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 (snow). I'm going to close this early - I can't see an extra few days making a difference here (non-admin closure). Stalwart111 12:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basilica of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Syracuse[edit]

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

No apparent particular notability, and no nonlocal substantial references. I personally would be prepared to have articles on all cathedral and similar churches, but I don;t think that's what we usually do DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a minor papal basilica. That's a singular honour. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would think any basilica would be considered notable; this is one of only 74 in the United States. It is true that the sourcing right now is pretty thin, but I think someone with access to more research materials would be able to find more coverage. I was able to locate a couple of paywalled but likely useful news articles:

Gleaves-Hirsch, Melanie (June 21, 1999). "Sacred Heart Named Area's First Basilica: West End Church Is One of Only 3 Upstate". The Post-Standard p. B1.

Gleaves-Hirsch, Melanie (October 3, 1999). "Church Designated as Basilica: The Bishop Will Read a Vatican Proclamation at Mass at Sacred Heart Church". Syracuse Herald American p. B1.

The database I was looking at only goes back to 1995; considering the church is over 100 years old I'm sure there is more out there. Camerafiend (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable, architecturally, historically, and due to its papal recognition. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Nominator does not think the article should be deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. It's a basilica. We keep all articles on cathedrals and basilicas as a matter of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - it's a Papal Basillica with sources found. Basillicas and cathedrals are notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:00, 3 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info.com[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability. Zero references and an internet search yielded only the sites home page info.co.uk. Blue Riband► 13:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Survived previous AfD after two references from notable magazines were provided. You can see in an older version of the article that these used to be featured in the article but were removed for some reason somewhere down the line.LM2000 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd recommend wp:trouting the editor who removed the references in the last AfD - but they were an IP. Either way they were notable last time and wp:NTEMP Neonchameleon (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had the nominator read the previous AfD discussion, he/she could have restored those two references him/herself. Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 6 February 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 deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A7, "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EFHBroadband[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no evidence or claims of notability. Cited only to the company homepage. Sionk (talk) 22:12, 1 February 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 delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AVC Broadband[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - plainly a speedy deletion candidate, a few words only about a company cited to its website. Sionk (talk) 21:38, 1 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fastvision[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability apart from a nomination for a minor award. The 'sources' in the article are homepages for an assortment of companies. It's bordering on being a speedy deletion candidate for advertising! Sionk (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references verify the article text but I am finding no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 2 February 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 Witdrawn by nominator. Technical 13 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blackthorn Winter[edit]

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

Lacks assertion of notability and has no references, and I can't find any sources anywhere to cite that would suggest notability. Technical 13 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK, no sources found on Google.Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book reviews at Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews establish notability. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FireflySixtySeven, Add those sources to the article and I'll simply withdraw the nomination. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus is a paid reviewing service (see https://www.kirkusreviews.com/author-services/indie/ ). A review there does not establish notability.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only reviews labeled with "Kirkus Indie" are paid reviews. If it isn't labeled as such, then the review wasn't paid for. Not all reviews on that website are pay for play type of deals. In this specific instance this review was not purchased by the publisher through Kirkus Indie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it were just the reviews from PW and KR, then I'd be more leery about keeping this article. However I do note that I was able to find reviews from Kliatt, the Horn Book Guide, and the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. There is also a mention in this book from the NY public library, which listed it as a recommended book for teenagers via a committee. There was also a little mini review from the Toledo Blade, but I didn't include that since it was so short and part of a list. It's not the strongest keep I'd give it, but the three reviews from the places I mentioned above mixed with the PW, KR, and SLJ reviews give it enough oomph to keep. The problem with trade reviews is that while they're flawed for obvious reasons, there has been no good consensus as of yet to completely discredit trade reviews entirely unless the reviews are in a format that's so obviously unusable (IE, Kirkus Indie) that we can't deny that they're unusable. Part of the reason trade reviews can work towards notability is that the trades aren't completely indiscriminate in what books they review- PW only reviews a small portion of what they receive- and the reviews are not always uniformly positive, meaning that this isn't a positive review mill for publishers. I have no doubt that in about 5 years we'll have reached a consensus that will make trade reviews relatively unusable except from certain places, but right now we don't have that consensus. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:58, 2 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fido.net[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~keep~~ delete - though I don't think the sources are very strong, FidoNet was clearly a very early (therefore probably pioneering) internet service provider dating back to the 1980s. It clearly existed and was valued at the time. The previous AfD produced a "Keep" decision. Sionk (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote, considering there is a New York provider with the same name that is the likely subject of the book source. The book source seems to be the primary reason for the previous 'Keep' decision. I'm not enough of an expert of early ISP's to challenge this confusion. Failing some sort of reliable proof of the sequence of events I think it would be misleading to keep the article. Sionk (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly a good deal of coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Where? Or is that for FidoNet? Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The only independent source that is cited is clearly not talking about this UK ISP but about a FidoNet node in New York. "Fido.Net" is clearly a typo there (or alternative spelling if you like) and only occurs once in the text as "Fido.Net, a networking system that linked bulletin boards around the world" (and once more in the book's index). [5] The only real source about this UK ISP is a press release. (By the way, they actually spell their name exactly as "FidoNet" so even the article's title isn't correct--it would need to be FidoNet (UK ISP); we don't normally name companies by their domain names). This charade has lasted long enough. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The other "source found" in the previous AfD [6] is talking about the German Usenet newsgroup fido.ger.kochen [7] which is about cooking and doesn't have an immediate connection with either FidoNet or the UK ISP, although I'm inclined to think it originated on the former (i.e. on the BBS network) or at least it was named in connection to that. The source only uses fido.ger.kochen to illustrate what a google search through newsgroups looks like, so no other info is provided: "Es wurden die interessanten Gruppen fido.ger.kochen und de.rec.mampf gefunden. Die erste stammt aus dem deutschen Teil des englischen fido.net." Even if this is somehow about the UK ISP (very unlikely) it's miles and miles from providing WP:GNG-level info. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit more googling finds for example [8] which is a recipe originally posted to fido.ger.kochen by someone with a fidonet.org (i.e. FidoNet) email address. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources providing in-depth coverage of this company. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their own press release fails to mention any relation with FidoNet, which I'm sure they would have mentioned if it existed because they seem to mention every connection with other ventures otherwise. Here's what they provide as background:

“

FidoNet Registration Services Ltd (FidoNet) is an Internet Service Provider based in the UK which was formed in 2001 by the minds and technical expertise behind Demon Internet, Redbus Interhouse PLC, and the Interactive Investor International PLC (iii). FidoNet’s key goals are to provide quality service and support at sensible prices.

FidoNet’s founder Jon Morby has been involved in the fast-moving world of Internet technology since 1992 when he was recruited by Demon Internet, before which he worked as a “Registered Representative and Trader” (or StockBroker) in Birmingham. Morby founded FidoNet in 2001 in order to meet the technical requirements of fast-growing UK businesses requiring flexibility alongside of innovative technology.

”

So the only connection appears to be the reuse of the name (unlike what the wiki article claims.) Hope this helps. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And besides that, they seem to be a small operation if the founder still needs (in 2012) to promote his company on forums [9]; in fact he himself writes "We are a small, quality focussed ISP [...]". Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable service provider.→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:41, 7 February 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. With apologies to IRWolfie-, closing per WP:SNOW. Notability is agreed upon by all but two editors here, and appears clearly confirmed by Google Books hits indicated by Dr. Blofeld and by the other sources now in the article. Premature nomination: nominator is strongly urged to follow WP:BEFORE and to make a better effort to establish notability. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmín Chebar[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why notability may be presumed in lieu of sources as provided by WP:ANYBIO. Of the two sources offered, one is WP:PRIMARY and the other is an utterly trivial mention. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Did you look in google books? Clearly meets GNG .♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Here are a few sources for expansion: [10], [11], [12], [13]. There are plenty more, but I've got a hair appointment and that trumps expanding this article. By the way, lots of us are creating biographies on notable women today for the Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon. It would be great to have additional editor participation. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It'sd a bit silly to take an article created by an experienced editor like Rosiestep to AFD within minutes of it being created, without first doing such revolutionary things as, say, talking? Or PROD, if you have to. Clearly notable per the sources given above. Nom is reminded of WP:BEFORE and I for one would appreciate it I didn't need to waste my time on things like this. --Randykitty (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep,not 'clearly' notable, considering all except one of the sources are blogs or about her company (not her). But on top of the La Nacion article already cited, there is another news feature in 2012, which leads me to suspect the claims of importance are true. Sionk (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about her/her company combined.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be about both, though obviously there is some overlap. Sionk (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Sionk. I added a couple of sources. i can't asses the Spanish-language sources, but the en ones are not good. i added a couple but this is still rather weak. DES ^(talk) 00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough reliable sources presented to satisfy the notability criteria.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see some coverage in some rather poor sources and some passing mentions like [14], but what is the real claim to notability here? IRWolfie- (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Im surprised this was even nominated!, As above it's clearly sourced and thus passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:29, 2 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting on the stairs[edit]

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

No references have been provided, and no attempt has been made to establish subject's notability. Also unclear if we're talking about a film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless N is established. Seems to be this film; even RT has no reviews of it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not uncommon for Rotten Tomatoes to have no reviews of independent films, but this one seems to have virtually no coverage at all. I only count about 50 hits on Google, and none of them look reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable film. No refs. Snappy (talk) 18:16, 5 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Strike Portable[edit]

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

delete, non notable game. does not qualify for csd sadly Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - @Hell in a Bucket: Why didn't you PROD it if you believe its deletion would've been uncontroversial enough for a CSD (if a criteria covered this)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusionists routinely revert any prods and redirects that they find. I don't blame people for skipping straight to AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - NinjaRobotPirate is completely correct, I find that PROD is a useless time wasting process that should be bypassed by all except BLP Prod, which even then is a gamble. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Could be redirected somewhere, too. List of open source video games, maybe. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's so obvious why it should be deleted, I don't even know where to start.AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 02:08, 3 February 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 Richard Keech. I am not happy about using WP:IAR to delete Murder of Nicholas Candy, which was added to the discussion mid-way: it should be nominated separately for its own discussion. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Keech[edit]

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

Richard Keech was tagged for speedy, but I do not think WP:CSD#A7 applies here. The article is about a murderer who seems borderline notable to me. I would usually propose merging to the article about the Murder of Nicholas Candy per WP:CRIME's suggestion, but this is fiercely opposed on Talk:Richard Keech by someone who claims to be the subject's son. I am a bit unsure what is the best way forward here, and would welcome opinions. —Kusma (t·c) 19:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw the message from "someone who claims." Keech himself is only notable for one event, which is essentially no notability at all. If this information were to be kept it would belong on the article about the murder. Since the only reliable sources on Keech are already included in the article about the murder, there's nothing to salvage.Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Frankly, both articles should be deleted. Richard Keech was but one of the millions of servicemen & women in WWII who were POWs or killed or wounded. He told his story to his son, Steven, who wants Wikipedia to be the place where the stories are stored. But WP is not the place for such remembrances. The unusual aspect of Richard's life was the crime that occurred later on and the imprisonment. But the crime itself was not so unusual – it, too, was one of thousands that occur every day. The crime is recorded in one newspaper and the release from prison is recorded in another. But the sourcing for other aspects of Richard's life is not apparent. As I have suggested and encouraged on the talk pages, there are better places for such memorializations. (I have no doubt that Steven Keech is Richard's son, and I hope Steven won't be offended by the "claims to be" comments. They are not meant to be derogatory.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The entries above this point were made before I added Murder of Nicholas Candy to the discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 20:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and Murder of Nicholas Candy[edit]

I have added Murder of Nicholas Candy to the discussion. I believe this crime fails WP:GNG and WP:N/CA and does not need a place on Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 20:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – I want this article about Richard E Keech deleted and all references to Richard E Keech removed from Wikipedia.The article is completely misleading and I can not correct it.

The article about him has been simplified to the point that all it says is that he is a murderer and Nicholas candy is the victim.

Who cares about this tiny bit of information but the family of Nicholas candy and my family? This is hardly encyclopedia material.

Oh, there's no doubt that my dad killed Nicholas candy. The problem is discussing why. Motivation it makes all the difference .

I am at an impasse. I cannot discuss Richard E Keech's motivation. I will not discuss his motivation. The sister of Nicholas candy has been hurt enough by the loss of of brother: I will not compound this hurt by blackening the name of her brother. It was serve no purpose but satisfy my sense of justice. I can stand some loss of justice to avoid hurting his sister further. Let the dead keep their secrets.

So I'm at a loss to improve the article.

I'm amazed that you say that he earned no major decorations. To me the bronze star is pretty major. I have a newspaper article detailing sabotage he did as a prisoner to the Japanese ships.

I'm amazed that you say that he fought no major campaigns. The battle of Corregidor might've been a lost one that we would like to forget but he still fought in it.

Here's a website of his writings which are published from his estate.

http://free-at-last.businesscatalyst.com/the-last-battle.html

Perhaps it will give you some understanding, perhaps not.

I want this article deleted. It contains nothing of value.

Steven Richard Keech (Son of Richard Keech) 20:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperfi1919 (talk • contribs)

Delete Richard Keech article: the article was far more detailed previously, and has since been whittled down. I understand why his son is upset and angry as this stub is unrepresentative of the totality of his father's life. Quis separabit? 21:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, better to delete the Keech article than have to deal with OTRS/Wikimedia issues later. Quis separabit? 02:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is without prejudice to the Murder of Nicholas Candy article, which should be decided on its own merits or lack thereof. Quis separabit? 14:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Collapsed multiple bot-generated notices)

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 00:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 00:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 01:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 01:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 01:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 01:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 02:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The header has been fixed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 02:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chris Troutman (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only notable thing I see about Richard Keech is the murder - and were he still living that would fall under wp:BLP1E. It certainly falls under wp:CRIME, meaning that Richard Keech is either Delete or Merge (I side with delete especially as the current state of the article falls foul of wp:COATRACK). As for the murder, this is the first time I've done this - but although it scrapes past the GNG with the background that editing turned Richard Keech's article into a coatrack and the obvious distress the only marginally notable article is causing his son I'm going to invoke wp:IAR for my first time on Wikipedia and say delete the murder as well. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:39, 3 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Adams (graphic designer)[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography of an obscure teacher, marketer and graphic designer. Orange Mike | Talk 18:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The milking of every passing reference out there, makes it clear this is a case of WP:VANISPAM. It's fair to assume there isn't any in-depth coverage of him given what this detailed article is based on. Maybe he was mentioned in relation to Candy the Cow, but if the press coverage was anything like the TV one, I doubt that anyone paid much attention to him. (That clip doesn't mention him at all.) The Military Brats of America might be remotely notable (and his only interviews with the press were about that), but it was indeed outside his career, so if the org was notable, a separate page should be created about that. (It seems more like it was a one-off WP:EVENT type press spike.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previous !vote sums matters up well. Agricola44 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Yang Brian[edit]

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

The sources are pure PR, and the article itself is basically advertising. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an advertisement for a non-notable and her products, with no genuine third-party reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what Orangemike said. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I have a soft spot for text about cosmetics whose advertising suggests that they're good for you: it's always fascinating to see the seller attempting to sail between the danger of making any claim (and thus classing their products as medicinal) and that of admitting that they're not good for you. And this article does have some sources. I looked at one of these. In this very recent version, attributed to this page at "Main Line Today" (a Philadelphia paper, it would seem) was: In 1999, Brian returned to the U.S. She partnered with an American chemist and refocused some of the herbal remedies she learned as a child into a line of skin care products meant to heal skin conditions. In 2002 began selling her Wei East beauty brand on HSN (Home Shopping Network) and after becoming one of the fast growing beauty brands on channel, according to Women’s Wear Daily, in 2010 Brian joined forces with Space NK stores in the U.K and U.S. to introduce a 12-unit prestige treatment line called WEI Beauty. However, once we reduce that to what actually appears in that "Main Line Today" page, we get just: Brian refocused some of the herbal remedies she learned as a child into a line of skin care products. In 2002 began selling her Wei East beauty brand on HSN (Home Shopping Network) and in 2010 Brian joined forces with Space NK stores to introduce a line called WEI. (And even here I'm retaining gushy language: instead of joined forces with Space NK stores to introduce a line called WEI I'd have something like had Space NK stores sell a line called WEI -- though I'm not entirely sure of the meaning.) ¶ If anybody radically edits the article to remove its pseudosourced ingredients (or of course to source these properly), I'll reconsider my !vote. -- Hoary (talk) 03:51, 2 February 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kayli Barker[edit]

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

Non-notable racing driver that has competed only at the local level. This driver clearly fails WP:NSPORT and WP:NMOTORSPORT. However, she has gained a small amount of local media attention by being the first female to win a track championship at a NASCAR sanctioned track, but I do not feel that that is enough to meet WP:GNG. Drdisque (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This driver does meet WP:GNG. She has received a significant amount of media coverage and, while it is mostly local media coverage, this is Las Vegas we're talking about. And while Las Vegas is the 28th largest city in America, these papers don't just serve Las Vegas; they serve the entire Las Vegas Valley (so Las Vegas, Henderson and unincorporated Clark County). You can get a good estimate of that population from this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_County,_Nevada. The Las Vegas Valley isn't the only group that makes up Clark County, but it's, by far, the majority. Additionally, she was covered in a national teen magazine, Justine Magazine (http://www.justinemagazine.com/content/decjan-14-issue), in their December/January issue. However, they don't have the articles from that issue posted online; they are only in the print version. User: Rotherme
~~Weak delete~~ Change to Keep. Based on her age (16) she is still a minor and erring on the side of caution (Wikipedia articles are public sounding boards for good and bad). If Barker will be notable she has an entire lifetime to get there. Unless some significant amount of national sourcing appears. If she continues with her successes no doubt she will be notable soon enough. -- GreenC 21:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's gained more than a small amount of local media attention, and [15] is most certainly not local coverage. Nor are [16] or [17] or [18]. [19] A Nevada-wide source covered her as well. I wouldn't say she smashes GNG, but she meets it, and I'm sensing a strong lack of WP:BEFORE here from the nominator and GreenC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Winning a track championship at the track's third level of competition does not confer any form of notability if the competitor is male, female, white, black, or a green multi-tentacled asexual blobby thing from Mars. A spurt of "hey this can get us readers/viewers" news reports on a non-notable event doesn't add up to notability. (I'll also note the article is misleading in that "the first female champion of one of the three NASCAR classes" implies one of the national touring series which is absolutely not the case). If she had won the overall track championship she might have a claim to notability, but as it is she's no more notable than the winner of a "powder puff" track championship (of which there have been many female champions (seeing as "powder puff", as its name implies, is a "ladies' division") - all just as much "NASCAR champions" as Barker. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She won a race in a low level racing series at her local race track. So have thousands of other people at her age. "Faces in the Crowd" doesn't convince me since it's a crystal ball type of report. This article is too soon. There aren't even articles about the top local series Super Late Model local track champions - except if they won that series' national championship. Let her appear in one of the big 3 NASCAR series (Sprint Cup, Nationwide, or Camping World Truck Series) or a top notch touring series like ARCA, then she should have an article. Bushranger is right about the weasel statement of the big 3 series. Royal broil 01:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. There a numerous articles in major publications covering her so she passes the general notability guideline. That she is young or whether the races she has competed in are major is not especially relevant. She's significant per being deemed significant by the reliable independent sources that Wikipedia's coverage is based upon. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The coverage of her in non-local coverage that I listed comes from August 2013 and September 2012, whilst the Nevada source comes from November/December 2013. That's sustained coverage, and, although the article is flawed, people are forgetting that AfD is not cleanup, and are making insistences that simply don't line up with policy. She meets GNG, therefore she is notable, regardless of whatever level she is racing at. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see additional sources have been provided. I still firmly believe this is WP:TOOSOON, but I can't disagree that the letter of GNG is met here if not the spirit, so I've struck my delete !vote (but without changing to keep). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that, particularly as she doesn't have such an enormous amount of coverage that notability is rock solid. Women drivers are the in-thing for coverage at the moment, that's hard to dispute. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lukeno94 has found some quite notable reliable sources that prove she is clearly notable. One said she was "the youngest female (15 years, 24 days) to win a NASCAR-sanctioned main event". Nascar Digest did a spotlight all about her. Other coverage as well. Dream Focus 21:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Article subject notable. I believe over time this article would grow as the individual is already notable with a growing career. Female athletes in this particular industry are news worthy and encyclopedic worthy because they are rare which makes them notable. The sources are creditable. The article could use some cleaning up. it's a good start DIZwikwiki (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is circumstantial and does not appear to meet notability criteria. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the coverage, or WP:GNG? Whether a source is "circumstantial" is utterly irrelevant, it's routineness that matters. Motor Racing Digest did a long, in-depth piece on her; that's not routine in the slightest, and nor is it circumstantial to her race victory; to claim that shows you've not read the source at all. The Nevada Magazine source could be claimed to be "circumstantial", but it goes a long way beyond "local girl did good", as it covers her schooling history, and some of her prior history as well. That's enough right there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: This has attracted more discussion than a typical relist, but I still don't see a clear consensus here. I could close this as no consensus, but I'm going to throw it back in the hopes that a few more days of discussion may clarify things.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 5 keep votes, 2 delete votes, 1 comment (which can be interpreted as a keep vote anyway). One delete vote doesn't have any basis in policy, the other does. How the hell is this "no consensus", RoySmith? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And beyond that, the discussion went stale 4 days ago, one person who initially voted delete struck their vote, and another changed to keep. This is a pretty clear "keep" consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a meta-discussion, so I responded on User talk:Lukeno94. RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The discussion should be here, not moved about elsewhere. I'd say consensus is rather clear in favor of "keep". There is enough participation here than an administrator can close it, there no reason to relist it. A random person can't just decide an AFD get relisted without a valid reason. Dream Focus 16:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there was a significant article, I believe this will likely end up falling into WP:ONEEVENT. Her accomplishment is INCREDIBLY minor on the grand scale of auto racing. It's the equivalent to winning a high school tournament. Lots of High School athletes who are state champions in individual sports have articles written on them, but that doesn't make them notable. The fact that she has a good publicist that was able to get some non-routine coverage of her accomplishment does not substantially enhance the importance of said accomplishment. I feel that if this article does survive AFD, it will be right back here in a year or two as ONEEVENT will be quite clear at that point when there will be no significant ongoing coverage. -Drdisque (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote myself; "The coverage of her in non-local coverage that I listed comes from August 2013 and September 2012, whilst the Nevada source comes from November/December 2013." ONEEVENT categorically does not apply. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 1 February 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 February 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existence of publicity does not overcome the fact that the accomplishment is not notable. The GNG is very clear that meeting it does not require us to make an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that policy based? Where does it say that the accomplishment has to be notable for an article to exist? Whilst the specific race she won isn't notable, the fact that she's the first female to win a NASCAR package event is most definitely notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:I don't like it. The guidelines are useless if you can just ignore them whenever you feel like it. Some exceptions may exist at times, but this isn't one of them. Doesn't being "the youngest female to win a NASCAR-sanctioned main event" make her notable? Dream Focus 04:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Her "accomplishment" is a very minor local one. "NASCAR-sanctioned" doesn't confer any notability. -Drdisque (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I don't think this crosses the bar, the argument that the accomplishment is not notable utterly fails to hold water. We don't value-judge that somebody who passes WP:GNG shouldn't have an article for "not accomplishing something notable". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:00, 2 February 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury per CSD A3 (no meaningful, substantive content). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antiroach[edit]

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

It is very short and disn't have any content. Apli kasi 16:52, 1 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volta Caberet[edit]

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

This is non-notable event. No indication of significance, and no reliable sources. Prod tag was removed. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current references are not convincing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, no reliable refs. Seems to have been written by someone who participated in it. Snappy (talk) 17:16, 3 February 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. Carry on with other works people. WP:Non-admin closure §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mukul Sharma[edit]

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

Mukul Sharma has no notability and by WP:Notability, this article can be deleted. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMICS for being the holder of a named chair "W. A. “Tex” Moncrief, Jr. Centennial Chair in Petroleum Engineering" (ref) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I refer the nom to WP:PROF (and also WP:BEFORE) and recommend to study it before doing further nominations in this field. The nomination statement is very weak, too. In any case, Sharma holds a named chair at UT (as the article states and easily verifiable through the external link provided), which is a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#5. --Randykitty (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMICS, point #5. The subject holds a named chair at the University of Texas at Austin. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The pass of WP:PROF#C5 is definitive and clear enough, but he also passes #1 through high citations demonstrated e.g. in his Google scholar profile [20]. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Endowed chair conclusively passes WP:PROF. Because "keep" is inevitable, can I make a friendly suggestion for nom to withdraw this AfD? Agricola44 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 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. Editor withdrew nomination Bgwhite (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Astrologer's Day[edit]

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

Once again, a PROD tag removed with no explanation. Non-notable short story: article is only a plot resume and a potted biog of the (notable) author. TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone I don't understand what do you tring to explain here by tagging this article for deletion. This short story is fairly a notable work by R. K. Narayan. It was the first short story in the famous collection of short stories Malgudi. Please go to the authors page and see his notable works, you will find this story. And this story is sourced with number of reliable sourvces. And beside this every short story must contain a sub section about the author. It is of no means to put a article which is almost complete into deletion without proper reasons. I think you haven't gone through the article properly. It has two more sections beside the plot and about author. Give proper reasons for deletion. Thank you. And forgive me If I was rude. Rudra john cena (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far from rude, but make your case on the afd discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well TheLongTone I haven't understand what you are tring to explain me. I have just gone through the deletion policy and found that the article does not meet any criteria for deletion and if you have any minor problem then just edit the article and modify it. You haven't explained any proper reason based on deletion policy. If you won't explain the proper reasons then I am afraid that I have to close this AfD. Rudra john cena (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your remarks especially the last one means that you have no idea how wikipedia works. therefore please be patient and see what others have to say. - Altenmann >t 17:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No doubt the article needs to be improved, but "bad condition" is not a reason to delete. My reasons for keep vote are— a) multiple mentions in books, some of those discuss on the story in details, not just the name. I saw a source mentioned it was a "remarkable story", i. e. WP:BKCRIT #1. b) to some extent WP:BKCRIT #5 "subject's notability" , R. K. Narayan is so notable and significant at least in India (specially for Indians writing in English), unless a content is totally unsourcable, I am reluctant to accept that it is not notable. Also I feel it may pass WP:BKCRIT #4, Narayan's all stories are widely taught in Indian schools. I have read at least 5 in my school and college, colleges and universities. We studied about this story in brief as a part of Narayan's literary contribution, but we did not have this in our syllabus. I am talking about West Bengal education system. Don't know about other boards and universities. Tito☸Dutta 18:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tito and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP --Admr Boltz 18:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added an additional source, and there appear to be lots of academic and literary secondary sources that discuss this specific work. The article needs a rewrite, not deletion. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A book created by a notable author. ///EuroCarGT 20:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EuroCarGT: given that notability is not inherited, would you be willing to explain your rationale a little more? VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: The book itself has a lot of academic value, as you've stated above, though my !vote may haven't been stated correctly, the book meets WP:BKCRIT, subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. ///EuroCarGT 22:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep because of the multiple mentions in other books. --Stfg (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination for afd.TheLongTone (talk) 14:34, 2 February 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. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries with most skyscrapers[edit]

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

This statistics looks very strange. First of all, referencing comes from very unreliable sites. Furthermore, how come China is 2nd place with 7000 skyscrapers while Hong Kong is number one with 2354? Since when 7000 is lower than 2354?

Finally, it contains a lot of errors as more countries should be included here. NovaSkola (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete open to original research. Even the article Skyscraper says "There is no official definition or height above which a building may be classified as a skyscraper". LibStar (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of such a list done well: List of cities with most skyscrapers. platypeanArchcow (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. I can't see how such a list would be useful and educational. The combined height of buildings over 100m in a country is a trivial statistic with no demonstrated notability. There is no explanation given as to how this supposed to "contribute to the state of human knowledge". -ELEKHH^T 23:56, 4 February 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. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of roads in Swords[edit]

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

We do not normally accept articles like this. I am not saying that we should not do so, but that we haven't, and to include the information for this particular neighborhood in dublin is unusual, and needs some special justification DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 1 February 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 February 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE. This is much too detailed and if we were to do this for every town in every country.... Snappy (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the rationales above. This is too much like a directory, and I do not see how it satisfies WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per others; there is nothing notably about this list. There is not even one article about one of the road in its own right. ww2censor (talk) 09:57, 4 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Dodge Stevens[edit]

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

A search shows indicates no WP:GNG , created by possible WP:COI account "OfficialJD" Murry1975 (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page of a nonnotable. - Altenmann >t 17:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More WP:CHILDPROTECT concerns along with the vanity and non-notable Youtuber issues, but the first is especially more prevalent; since we're under Florida law technically this is a COPPA violation. Nate • (chatter) 02:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nate I didnt know that one! Sorry I would have requested a speedy delete if I had known. Murry1975 (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too soon by far. Not yet notable. Fails WP:NACTOR. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 2 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Street[edit]

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

Youtube channel, after search of news and web cant find anything to indicate WP:GNG created by possible COI account Murry1975 (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete looks to fail both A7 and A11 ("Book an audition now..."). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonnotable. - Altenmann >t 17:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably non-notable and highly likely those pictures probably have a photo studio copyvio. Also some consideration for WP:CHILDPROTECT and COPPA issues. Nate • (chatter) 02:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:55, 2 February 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 deletion "no content, attempt to communicate with Wikipedia editors". (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thiv[edit]

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

Reads as an essay of criticisms of the Wikipedia CSD policy, not as an encyclopedic entry. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a misplaced message that should have been left on Yunshui's talk page. Jinkinson talk to me 14:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy CSD-A3 no encyclopedic content whatsoever. Not even an essay. - Altenmann >t 17:33, 1 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Cypriots v. TRNC and HSBC Bank USA[edit]

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

This is case no. 09-1967 in DC district court and appears to have been decided. However, there was no newspaper coverage, or other coverage, of the case. I think the information we have is too scanty for an article on this and the press releases quoted should be merged into the article Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States. Shii (tock) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know the case. It's not encyclopedic. Has got few references. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is 14 few? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per faulty rationale of the nominator. However, there was no newspaper coverage, or other coverage, of the case.. The article has three newspaper references, not none, as the nominator claims. Moreover the newspaper coverage spans 2009, 2010, 2011; this is persistent, longterm press coverage for this legal case. In addition the article is already long and detailed and can be further expanded making any merge idea impractical and unnecessary. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get it. The article lists the official name of the case as "Greek Cypriots, et al. v. TRNC and HSBC Bank USA". But it's not, as Justia can tell you. Why are the sources consistently wrong? Shii (tock) 08:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess the sources are using descriptive names and not the legal name of the case. But I don't think this is a valid reason to delete the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It just makes me question the unsourced material in the article, such as the name and current status of the case. If the article passes AFD I will probably rename it to "Greek Cypriots v. Turkish Cypriots". Shii (tock) 17:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - There may be unsourced material in the article but there is a lot of sourced material that has not yet been added from the reliable sources. As for renaming the article Greek Cypriots v. Turkish Cypriots this completely misses the point that the TRNC, HSBC and even Turkey are all named in the class-action suit, according to the reliable sources, as the defendants in the case, and no source is talking about the defendants being the Turkish Cypriots so your suggestion fails recognisability and is original research. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The title as it stands is also original research and apparently made up by the article's authors. Shii (tock) 20:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree. Perhaps we can change it to something like "Greek Cypriot class action suit against Turkey and TRNC". I have seen some descriptions in the sources closely matching this description and will put them forward as quotes a bit later. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The name of the case is: Toumazou et al v. Republic of Turkey et al Case number 1:2009cv01967. I just added the reference from Justia.com. The article now has 14 references. Can we close this AfD then? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now I added two more references for a total of five. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice amount of coverage from multiple different references. — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Article should be moved to the real name of the case. James500 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you James500. I'll move the article as soon as this AfD ends. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like a news-story, not a encyclopedic entry. Not enough reliable references, too. Biased. Pompei34992 (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)— Pompei34992 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The rationales for deletion are inadequate because they are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Whether the title is correct is not relevant under WP:RUBBISH ("Some articles have well-written text and references. But the one thing poor about them is the title. There is a simple solution to this: rename it!"). There are some reliable sources like Courthouse News, ABC News, and the Telegraph; the objection is to their quantity. But the fact that there only a few reliable sources rather than a bevy is insufficient for deletion under WP:RUBBISH and also misunderstands notability per WP:MUST and WP:NRV ("If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate" and "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."). So I think there's no reason to delete. AgnosticAphid talk 00:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you AgnosticAphid for your well-thought out and documented comments but there are many more RS than the ones you just mentioned: Hurriyet, Associated Press, The Weekly Standard, Cyprus Mail (quote: "is the top-selling English-language daily newspaper published in Cyprus."), The National Herald, Cyprus News Agency and more. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Courthouse News is not actually RS, and we are not supposed to cite legal documents on Wikipedia. But I see the argument for keeping the article. Shii (tock) 02:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say that quite definitively, but I don't think it's clear that courthouse news is not an RS. I searched the RSN archives, and all I could find was a conclusion in one instance that they aren't reliable for criminal cases since the "about us" page says they focus on civil litigation. This is a civil case. I don't see what's so unreliable about it. It gets quoted in venerable publications from time to time and an awful lot of my lawyer friends read it. They exercise editorial control over their posts. Plus, they attach documents to the end of almost all of their articles, so everything they say is verifiable. It's also not super relevant if this one source is reliable. Still, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. AgnosticAphid talk 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Agnosticaphid. @Shii:: You also say: and we are not supposed to cite legal documents on Wikipedia How is that? Many law articles I have seen all cite legal documents. In fact it sounds completely counter-intuitive not to cite legal documents in a legal case. Can you point to the relevant policy which says that we are not supposed to cite legal documents on Wikipedia? Also another point: This case, as Bearian observed below, has got international coverage from many reliable sources. Many law articles do not come close to having near the number of its reliable sources. Yet, this case with such superior coverage by RS is still up for deletion. Why? I think we have reached the point of speedy keep. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

using the legal document is a problem because the legal documents are WP:PRIMARY sources. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but still. AgnosticAphid talk 21:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I know about WP:PRIMARY. But the use of primary sources is not prohibited on Wikipedia. And I am not making any claims using the primary sources. I just used them to establish in good faith that the case is documented and it exists. I also use them to establish its official legal name. This use of primary sources is not prohibited. And primary sources are used widely in legal articles not because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but because primary sources are very useful in establishing official details of the cases. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:36, 2 February 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^(talk) 06:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as it appears now, it passes per WP:HEY. The average district court cases does not get this kind of international coverage. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 2 February 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) 02:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romulus (donkey)[edit]

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

Why should the donkey that happens at the moment to be the tallest donkey in the world be notable? The information comes from Guiness Book of World Records, and that's where it belongs. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Oppose~~: The record itself implies notability. Google provides many hits, multiple stories in neutral, third-party sources including the Dallas Morning News, and NBC, FOX and CBS News affiliates. Certainly if we have articles on Sri Lankan cricket players and Lawnchair Larry, the world's largest donkey measures up comfortably. If he is dethroned, we could donsider delisting him then, but for now, seems fine. Not sure if there is list or article on record holding animals, if so, a merge could be proposed, but I vote keep. I might also note that Thumbelina (horse) has been happily stabled, unmolested by AfDs, on wikipedia since 2006. Montanabw^(talk) 07:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Ours is not to reason why". We follow the guidance of external sources per the general notability guideline which this impressive specimen seems to pass. Andrew (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. Substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject crosses verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 01:20, 4 February 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. 28bytes (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Marden[edit]

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

Actress and model whose roles have all been minor supporting ones to date; article is sourced entirely to primary, unreliable (i.e. blogs) or trivial (i.e. the mere appearance of her name in a television or film directory) sources, with not a single valid source in the bunch. As always, she can have an article if one that makes a substantive claim of notability can be written and sourced to substantial coverage in reliable sources, but as written this version does not pass that test. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject's roles to date do not meet WP:ENT, and I'm unable to find significant coverage for her in reliable sources (WP:GNG). Gong show 06:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon for this model/actress. She doesn't have the significant coverage in reliable sources that we require. Maybe later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She was one of the stars of the movie Pigs -- I'm not sure if that's enough to warrant her own Wikipedia entry, but I thought I'd mention it. Drpickem (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

added one more reference from IMDB but may not change oyur reviews. Thanks for your considerationJpop73 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB does not count as a reliable source that demonstrates notability. Every person who's ever been involved in any film or television production at all, right down to "third assistant best boy's hairdresser", gets an IMDb page but that doesn't make them all notable enough to be on here. Bearcat (talk) 08:57, 5 February 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. I brought the references over from the French article, so this AfD is now pointless. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kev Adams[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References can be found on the original article on the French Wikipedia.--Auric talk 02:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which unfortunately, does us no good at all. If somebody who has duel proficiency in English and French wants to bring those references over, that would be good. Unfortunately, that person is not me. Safiel (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lousy references but there is a prima facie case for notability in the article. If the details of his career are in any way verifiable I'd say he meets WP:N. This just needs some good sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The current references are not reliable, so delete as an unreferenced blp. That would change to keep if reliably sourced references are added. Safiel (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Since the only issue is blp references, I suggest closing this AfD and placing a blp prod instead. Safiel (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is just lazy. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:22, 1 February 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Biddle[edit]

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

The company may be notable, but I don;t see how he is. The award is minor: it's the award of a single city. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit harsh. He's founded a major international company, is consulted by governments about environmental and sustainability policies, and is regularly asked to be a speaker at panel discussions and events. It's also a bit more difficult to demonstrate notability for business leaders as they don't necessarily receive the same level of media coverage as entertainment personalities, but their impact on the world is considerably greater.G2003 (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are mostly about his business. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the above, most of the coverage seems to be about their business. Number 5 7 13:32, 4 February 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. postdlf (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Nicoll[edit]

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

Fails WP:RLN. A search on RLP reveals he has not played first grade for any professional club. Mattlore (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If he was ever at any of the pro clubs mentioned in the article, he certainly never played for the first team. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 January 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, Mkdw ^talk 01:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PERNOM. You may want to elaborate on your rationale to contribute to the discussion further. Mkdw ^talk 06:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too was unable to find anything that would suggest this player meets WP:RLN. In addition there does not appear to be anything to suggest that this player would meet WP:SIGCOV either. Mkdw ^talk 06:15, 1 February 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. It seems that none of the players nominated ever played in a fully professional league nor was called to the national team. Thus, they fail WP:NFOOTY. Nobody argued why any of them (individually) passes WP:GNG. If someone wants to change WP:NFOOTY, AfD is clearly not the best place for this. If someone wants to take one or several articles and work on them demonstrating they pass WP:GNG please ask me or any other administrator for userfication.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Gorman[edit]

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

Has not played in a fully professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and has not received significant media coverage, so fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Comment - All four articles nominated here have been at AfD previously in 2006 - Eloka Asokuh AfD

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - all appear to fail GNG and NFOOTBALL. Our notability requirements have, thankfully, been tightened up significantly since the last AFD nearly a decade ago. Giant Snowman 18:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has League of Ireland Premier Division ever been "fully professional"? Because Scottish Premiership and Scottish Championship (or their forerunners) have historically comprised part-time teams but seem to get a free pass on here. In terms of GNG you would expect players in a top national league to get more coverage than players in Scotland's second tier where the domestic press isn't 'national' but local, and is completely dominated by coverage of one or two clubs. As a member of the women's football taskforce, which I suppose is loosely associated with WP:FOOTBALL, I find the list of players up for AFD or PROD on the front page perpetually embarrassing. It's alway Irish-sounding or otherwise 'foreign' names on there, pointing to a fairly disgusting programme of ethnic cleansing. Articles about WASP players tend not to crop up there, unless they're a) women, or b) very young boys. This seems to be because a handful of noisy editors, who possess very modest talent in terms of creating content, take it upon themselves to dream up discriminatory inclusion criteria and then police every deletion discussion. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Clavdia chauchat: - I suggest you review our deletion archives. I would also suggest you please stop with the personal attacks (i.e. "noisy editors, who possess very modest talent in terms of creating content") seeing as your civility problems have been raised at ANI in the past. Giant Snowman 17:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Clavdia chauchat: Having read your comment, I can only assume you are trolling. JMHamo (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: I don't know why you'd violate FAITH and assume they are trolling. Simply because it's not written in a politically correct way, doesn't mean that @Clavdia chauchat: isn't correct in noting that many of the deletions on the project seem to show BIAS. Surely a player who has played for years on a leading team in a country, is just as notable as someone who played for 5 minutes in League 2. Nfitz (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Please familiarize yourself with WP:FPL, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as you seem to be confused about these. My nomination has nothing at all to do with nationality as insinuated. JMHamo (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: That has nothing to do with it. Clearly WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG are tinged with WP:BIAS. And I don't see the need to be so utterly rude to imply that someone who points out that you've broken WP:FAITH doesn't understand the guidelines! Please, be civil. Nfitz (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily enough I have faith that the closing Admin will see that you've a track history at AfD based on your wrong interpretation of policy (see user's Talk page and previous AfD !voting) and ignore you, so that's what I will be doing too! JMHamo (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: What has my track record on voting got to do with anything? I have not voted on this, as I see no basis for notability, given we've established that Irish footballers aren't notable. Clavdia chauchat hasn't voted either. I was simply calling you out for your extreme incivility in your reaction to Clavdia chauchat. My track record is fine ... not my fault that no one changed WP:Footy to reference a new notability standard than we'd previously been using ... it's not like you made some huge errors youself! Surely one's civility is far more important than one's voting scoresheet!!! Nfitz (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL and the ridiculous WP:FPL are the problem because they were supposedly created to supplement WP:GNG. WP:FOOTY's self-appointed leaders have hijacked FPL and are now using it abusively, to pervert rather than supplement WP:GNG and to reflect their own biases. Then we have well-meaning but limited young editors coming along and playing WP:WHACAMOLE. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you. But I don't see the solution. Closing admins will follow WP:FPL to the point of ignoring WP:GNG even under the extreme circumstances of hundreds of international articles about an up and coming international superstar weeks before they debut in the starting line-up of one of the best teams in the planet. At the same time, they move the goal post on WP:FPL on long-time foreign players who play at the highest level in their own country, even with articles on small foreign-language wikis, simply because the third-world country they are in, isn't rich enough to stop players moonlighting. Meanwhile WP:COMMONSENSE is thrown out the window and WP:BIAS is blatant. Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please get a grip. There are plenty of articles that have been kept because they meet GNG but fail NFOOTBALL - I have even created many myself - and there are plenty of articles which have been deleted because they fail GNG even though they technically meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per WP:NFOOTBALL. In response to the comments above, the fully-professional league requirement (which originally applied to almost every sport) was devised as it was the closest approximation that could be found to notability. Professional status (i.e. full-time professionalism as opposed to semi-professionalism) can usually only be achieved when a team attains a certain level of popularity - i.e. having enough people coming to watch every week to give sufficient financial support to a club to allow to run on a full-time professional basis. In some countries football is a lot more popular than in others, and these countries are thus more likely to have professional leagues. In a small number, football is sufficiently popular to support several levels of professional football.

If we take two countries of roughly equal size - Ireland and Norway - the difference in attendances (and therefore ability to support professional status) mean in the Norwegian Tippeligaen, a player playing every game during a season will be watched by around 110,000 people, whilst a player in the League of Ireland's top division would be seen by only 19,000. Even accounting for the fact that the Tippeligaen has four more clubs, this still leaves a number more than four times the LOI's figure. This has a direct impact on notability of the players playing in those leagues. It is not biased, but rather a reflection of the reality of the notability of domestic football in different countries. Number 5 7 19:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many watch Scottish Division One? You know the semi-pro league you made a series of bizarre and disingenuous excuses for, to keep it on the "FPL" list? There's your bias right there. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this the average attendance so far this season equates to just under 62,000 - which is over 3 times what they get in Ireland. That is 1,720 x 36 games. Giant Snowman 19:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some 'back of fag packet' adding-up going on here. Our 2012 League of Ireland article says 107,000 people watched LOI Premier Division matches that season: 1,683 per match. This season's match average in SPFL Championship is 1,703. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The LOI average attendance of 1,683 (unreferenced, by the way) works out at just over 50,000 for the 30 games - still a good 12,000 short of Scotland Div 1. According to this the LOI average was 1,774 - so 53,000 over 30 games. That is still 9,000 short of Scotland Div 1. Rather than trying to dis-prove the notability of Scotland, why not try and get the LOI added to WP:FPL? I might even support you with that... Giant Snowman 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per above, firstly WP:NFOOTY failures as have not played in a a WP:FPL, secondly, no indication of any other significant coverage to warrant a GNG pass. The rather uncivil accusations thrown around above are completely arse about tit. It is not and never has been a case of WP:FPL overriding GNG. As is the case in this article (and countless other Irish player articles that have gone through AfD in recent months) WP:FPL is the first step, does a player pass? If so they are assumed notable per NFOOTY. If not, have they played in a full senior international match? If so, regardless of what the nature of their league involvement has been they are deemed to have passed NFOOTY. If they fail on both counts, the final step is to look at GNG: have they achieved a significant level of non-routine coverage beyond match reports and transfer speculation? The players in question here are all non-international players whose articles make no claim to notability other than to have played a bit of football. Compare the players above to this Irish player: Noel Bailie. This to me is a prime example of a player who has not played in a FPL, nor played senior international football but has achieved things within the game that have garnered significant non-trivial recognition and coverage. Fenix down (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: A quick look at the Donegal Democrat found 27 references to Tom Mohan, 8 results for Anthony Gorman with one article title mentioning him by name in the title, and 47 results for Marc Mukendi‬. There are 53 results in the Derry Journal for Marc Mukendi‬ including an article specifically about him biting an opponents ear. There are 50 results for Anthony Gorman in the Derry Journal. There are a number of references to Anthony Gorman in the Irish Independent (at least 20). There are at least two references to Gorman in the Belfast Telegraph. 139 mentions for Tom in the Irish Times. 17 references for Tom in the Irish Examiner. Even if there is only one or two articles exclusively about all these players in the two regional newspapers mentioned, the total volume of coverage (exceeding 50 to 100 articles each) that mentions them leads me to conclude they are notable. It is also worth considering that in the case of Anthony Gorman, Tom Mohan and I think the rest, substantial parts of their careers took place in the mid to late 1990s. From about the 1970s to the mid-2000s, there is a sizeable gap in newspaper digitilization. Thus it appears that if we had regional access to these newspapers from the period when they were more active, we would see even more coverage than what the Donegal Democrat, Irish Independent, Belfast Telegraph and Derry Journal provide us (which is already a fair bit). If the existing sources shown here were all used, you'd be left with a pretty good picture of why these guys are notable: as footballers. --LauraHale (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's usual in AfD discussions to provide actual links to specific articles, not just assertions based on the number of WP:GOOGLEHITS. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added exclusively newspaper and television sources to Tom Mohan, which should give an idea of the availability of sources to prove WP:GNG and I would ask that those who have voted delete look at the article with sources to see if the volume of sources changes their minds on this article, where the work done there can easily be duplicated on the rest of the nominated articles. --LauraHale (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - This is all routine news coverage in local Irish media. Not enough to justify broader notability, so still fail WP:GNG in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is (largely - not exclusively) run-of-the sports journalism, and does not indicate the "significant" coverage as required by GNG. Giant Snowman 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with GS and JMH, the refs you have added are all routine journalism. The ones relating to his playing career are just match reports. These are sources that deal with a game that took place and are in no way significant coverage about any particular player. All sorts of players down to very low levels of football get this sort of coverage in local papers and magazines. Significant coverag means interviews with the players, articles specifically about his career, etc not an article on "Team A v Team B" where he came off the bench to score! Also adding five references about an injury he had once does not help GNG!

Additionally, the articles about his managerial career are about matches the junior teams played, not about him specifically. Whilst it is clear from these that the team gets coverage, there is no indication that the manager has been the subject of significant in depth reporting.

Finally, the searches you presented above are not really helpful as they return results about people simply with the same name. It would be more helpful if you could show links to specific articles or interviews where the focus is on the individual not his team or a match he played in. Fenix down (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a number of sources, but I think when you hit over 100 total references to a player, they go past routine and the sheer volume of references over the full extent of their career indicates notability. These aren't box scores and one tiny little paragraph things in a single newspaper. This is substantial coverage for many years in many newspapers including national and regional newspapers. Why do you dislike the 'Irish Times and the Irish Examiner? The volume of coverage is what makes it significant. I'd be happy to get the total references on the Tom article up over 100. --LauraHale (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and This is not routine. It is an indepth article about the Tom Mohan. --LauraHale (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While at it, London newspaper discusses his departure and names him in the title. Name in title, not routine. If this isn't substantial, provide up a number or an idea of what you're looking for in terms of volume and what you define as routine. --LauraHale (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Under 17 manager looking forward to working with Martin O’Neill and Roy Keane is hardly notable, so what? JMHamo (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura, your first link does indeed look like an interview with the player, though I think you'll need more than one for GNG. Your comments on the number of hits a name has are completely irrelevant. I would expect even a conference player to have more than 100 hits because they have probably played more than 100 games that received routine attention where their name was included in the squad list. Your second link is just routine transfer speculation and after the second sentence doesn't mention him at all (which means your argument of "name in title = notable" doesn't really hold water) and I can't comment on your third one, because it is not freely available to read. I'm also not sure what you are trying to achieve by challenging me to provide a number of hits above which a player is notable. I would suggest that you have a scan of WP:BOMBARD, look for a few more interviews like the first link you provided, remove all of the routine matchreport links in the article you added that do not assert notability and rebuild the article around the substantive interviews / articles like the one you first mentioned. Fenix down (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If one was to do a search of any experienced English non-league player at Non-League-Daily.com, you would come up with dozens, if not hundreds, of results. That does not make them notable if every single one of them is run-of-the-mill, routine, basic sports journalism. Giant Snowman 16:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per LauraHale. Typical bad faith nonsense from the WP:FOOTY circle jerk: pretend their "FPL" monstrosity has any meaning, if (when) that fails pretend any and all coverage of unfavoured leagues is "routine". You're not fooling anyone lads. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Clavdia chauchat: is correct. Wikipedia:What is and is not routine coverage is only an essay, but it does say of routine coverage that "box scores are examples of routine coverage. If an article goes into detail about the event, that is not necessarily "routine" coverage." I would ask that those calling the 100+ references found regarding each of the individuals mentioned in this AfD to point out which of them are box scored. Having looked at the sources, I have found few to none that I would qualify as box scores. Assuming "routine coverage" here is being used in a Wikipedia sense, I would ask the people saying delete to show that at least 75% of the referenced sources in RTVE, the Irish Examiner, the Donegal Democrat, the Irish Times, the Irish Independent are routine. I would further ask that any accusation by @Fenix down: and @GiantSnowman: of stuffing the article with the attempt to make Tom Mohan appear more notable by top loading with box scores to be retracted until they examine the sources to show these are box scores, and thus meet that essay's definition of "routine" for the purposes of disqualifying the sources for use in establishing WP:GNG. That accusation patently violates WP:AGF and it should be backed up with diffs. Please back up your accusation of bad faith. --LauraHale (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura, I have not accused you of anything. Please re-read what I actually wrote and then withdraw your accusation. Giant Snowman 20:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as documented above, there is significant media coverage of at least some of the players, including articles that focus on them. And this shouldn't be surprised given that these players have played for several years at the highest level of football in their country! Nfitz (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all; renominate as needed. Laura has demonstrated a level of coverage significantly exceeding the GNG for Mohan, which throws the rest of the nominations in to doubt. If the other players genuinely don't meet the GNG, renominate them individually. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As Fenix stated above, many of the citations added to the Tom Mohan article have no relevance and do not demonstrate notability. Bombarding the article makes it look impressive but when you check them out you realise they are useless. JMHamo (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's provided at least three articles that discuss Mohan at length. Subject-specific notability guidelines do not supercede the GNG. The amount of coverage she's provided exceeds the GNG and establsihes Mohan's notability. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there is much to be gained from continued discussion here. I acknowledge some steps have been taken to establish GNG through significant sources (though these are masked by a good bit of bombarding) for Mohan and Gorman, but there isn't really anything on the other two. I would suggest, as has been above, a no consensus close and then individual nominations if necessary. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 31 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tom Mohan, football player in highest national league plus national youth team manager (all verified) is enough for WP:GNG for me. Given that WP:NFOOTY favors fairly random German 3. Liga players over non-fully-professional leeague players who have played in their country's highest league, I have difficulties taking it very serious as keep or deletion reason anyway. —Kusma (t·c) 19:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So playing in front of a couple of hundred in the Estonian top division lends more notability to a player than playing in front of thousands (or tens of thousands for a few clubs) in the German third tier? I can't see how that works. Number 57 23:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Audience does not make notability, nontrivial coverage in reliable sources does. I am not saying all top tier league players are notable as football players, either (imagine a Vatican football league). The German third tier produces mostly statistics and match report type coverage, not significantly better than the fourth tier. I think the cut-off done by WP:NFOOTY is arbitrary, and not really connected to WP:GNG. —Kusma (t·c) 07:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It does not make notability, but it is a strong indicator of how notable a subject is - the more people turn up, the more well-known the players being watched are. Conversely, if players are not notable, then very few people would show up to watch. Number 5 7 11:09, 2 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 13:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Manuals Development Group[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Precision Manuals Development Group" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Completing on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale was posted on the talk page and is reproduced verbatim below. I note for the record that the previous debates (July 2008 and Sept 2013) both ended in No Consensus results. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale: After deleting the unreliable source (AVsim), and removing another which only had passing coverage (Salon), this article is left with only what I would consider to be TWO RS's - PC Pilot (though it itself doesn't have an article despite being the largest PC air simulation circulation), and the WSJ. Doesn't pass WP:GNG in my view. 75.185.34.253 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 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) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Two sources -- [21] and [22], both not having the company as the focus. The coverage in the first one is good to supplement GNG and second provides a mention. I can't find any extra coverage. And I don't see how this yet passes WP:GNG/WP:CORP with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. Most of the reliable sources review their games including awards [23], but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Last AfD had basically 1 participant and first AfD mostly presented sources for products' reviews rather than for the company itself. (While I personally feel many companies should have additional notability criteria if their products are highly reviewed/acclaimed, this is currently not in any guidelines.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the company may not have been the primary subject of reliable sources, its products have. Like the Kalypso Media AFD, I think it's better that readers are served with a list of their products rather than a blank. - hahnch e n 21:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, that's the best you can do for significant coverage? Fully 98% of those links are from ONE source, while another is an online store. That doesn't establish notability in my book. 75.185.34.253 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are from one source because the search was targeted to one source. Here's a similar search across the flightsim.com domain [24] - hahnch e n 04:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a stretch, because WP:USERG clearly states that webforums (of which FlighSim has) are not acceptable as sources. 65.24.59.12 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Umm... Sorry Google says otherwise, it's notable enough for me and WP:GNG is not even a problem for me.AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 02:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is extremely weak, and there is no mainstream coverage. Thousands of Ghits from mostly one source doesn't pass GNG in my book. 65.24.59.12 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was a close call, but ultimately, this fails Wikipedia:CORP. I deleted one reference from the article because it was a 404 (and in any case, linked back to the company's own web site). The PC Pilot references talk about specific products, not the company itself, and are perfunctory listings anyway. The Salon reference only mentions the company in passing. That leaves us with the Wall Street Journal article, which certainly meets at least some of the requirements of Wikipedia:CORP. The WSJ piece is primarily about the company, goes into depth, and is obviously in a respected mainstream publication. The problem is, it's just one source, and Wikipedia:CORP says, A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. Find us one more reference of similar quality to the WSJ article, and this is a keeper. But, lacking that, it doesn't meet the bar. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My !vote for keep above acknowledges that the sources address the products and not the company, it was keep nonetheless because the content of the article could just be moved to List of PMDG products, which was similarly suggested at the Kalypso Media AFD. - hahnch e n 16:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there actually multiple products? I got the impression there is basically one product, which comes in a bunch of model-specific variations. The graphics, controls, flight dynamics, etc, may all differ from model to model, but they're all just airplane plugins for a flight simulator platform. Not that this is critical to this discussion; a single-product company could certainly be notable enough to merit an article, but that notoriety needs to be demonstrated by multiple independent sources, which I don't see. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also trying to figure out how, We could move this to some other title, similar to a suggestion somebody made on another AfD, adds up to an argument for keeping this? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They make digital model airplanes. The links above show you reviews of the different the airplanes they make. The argument works for both articles, because if you recast the content as a list instead of an article, it would fulfil WP:CSC. - hahnch e n 17:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the WSJ article, here is an in-depth length interview at flightsim.com with the founder that talks about the company and its developers. I consider flightsim.com to be a reliable source. These two sources are enough for marginal notability according to WP:GNG, and other sources, such as IGN's PMDG page listing their products just adds to that. The article could be made a bit less promotional, but that is a matter of editing, not deletion. A marginally notable company and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't fit for WP:GNG. IGN entry is a routine catalog entry (as with any other company they have on record) and isn't suitable for notability at all. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nowhere does WP:GNG mention interviews. WP:PRIMARY does not mention interviews either. Interviews are mentioned in a footnote on that page, where it says "Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews;...", so it depends. For the purposes of establishing notability, the context in this case is that an independent reliable source, recognized as an authority in the field, took the effort to interview the company founder and publish it; there is the presumption of basic fact checking. I stand by my assertion that this RS contributes to notability. --Mark viking (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator X. Apart from that game, this group has little relevance.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator X per Jeff5102. When/if better tertiary sources emerge that better establish notability per WP:CORP the article can always be recreated.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 7 February 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:35, 7 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BeFunky Photo Editor[edit]

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

No evidence of notability , and highly promotional. About 1.3 the references are from their own site. The other 2/3 are from PR Web or similar sources, or reprinted from there--a very impressive collection of press releases, but that's all they are. accepted from AfC , which is not surprising DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Substantive coverage in Bloomberg, Complex, TechCrunch and Yahoo Finance means that this easily meets the qualifications of WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; most coverage is regurgitating PRs. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 24 January 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^(talk) 20:07, 24 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are primary, PR or trivial in their coverage. This is just WP:SPAM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing initially looks pretty solid, but it turns out to be built on press releases and trivial mentions. There's no real significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles more like an advert than anything. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:50, 2 February 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted Years (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Most references available are only about the lyrics of the songs. Mr RD 18:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about, when you google 'off wasted years', there are multiple articles about the upcoming release, none about the lyrics. -Joltman (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 20 January 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^(talk) 21:30, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are multiple sources which report basically the same thing: that this album comes out in April and that it follows the band's 2012 self-titled debut [25][26][27][28]. Some sites also review the first single - briefly in Spin's case, more in-depth in Rolling Stone's. These sources - combined with the confirmed release date, title, and tracklist - seem to provide enough material to create a reasonably detailed article. Gong show 07:01, 1 February 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. Whereas indeed we need references, it is also true that Grade II listed buildings have a good chance to be notable. Defaulted to keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhydspence Inn[edit]

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

Wholly lacking any in-line refs. No evidence of any notability. Sure, it's 14 century but that isn't that unusual in this area. Reads more like advertising. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the current owner has updated the page and parts of it may look like a biased article, it still contains history and an explanation of the historic building. Over the years they have had to contend with various factions to keep the place going. The last thing they need now is somebody with far too much time on their hands picking petty arguments over the content of the Wikipedia page entry. I say leave it be. I will ensure that more historic and informative information is added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James99uk (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sure that you are well meaning in your comments James, but what or what not the owners have done is not material here. What matters is notability and it may be worth reading the wikipedia guidelines before commenting further. It also does concern me that your only edits have been on this article and this page suggesting that you may have both a vested interest and a potential conflict of interest. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Grade II-listed building, according to English Heritage.[29] While Grade II-listed buildings are not automatically notable, there is a good chance they are, and I think this one is probably enough of a landmark to just about meet the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 24 January 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^(talk) 21:24, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 1 February 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. No prejudice against re-creation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rashichakra[edit]

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

Non-notable: nothing to suggest that it meets WP:NFILMS or WP:GNG. The only references are Youtube links and its Amazon page - the latter of which doesn't even have any customer reviews. Kolbasz (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 20 January 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^(talk) 21:20, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would support deleting for now and then creating a redirect when an article is written on Sharad Upadhye. Have no much time now, but he deserves an article. Rashichakra is a famous show he has been performing since many years. The guy is a Hindu astrologist and he has been talking on sunsigns through this show. The show was traditionally a stage performed one before and then moved to be a regular TV show on ETV Marathi. He is a well known astrologer. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:54, 1 February 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking Boyfriend[edit]

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

I like this song, however I do not think it meets WP:NSONG as there are no reliable sources in the article (Discogs is not reliable since it is edited by users much like Wikipedia and IMDB). I think this page should redirect to The Bird and the Bee (album), but I am willing to change my mind if someone can provide reliable sources which discuss this song in depth. Jinkinson talk to me 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reached #1 on an WP:OKAYCHARTS, and sourcing is better now. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fucking stupid
Comment The IP's statement is not a valid deletion rationale (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Jinkinson talk to me 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably should have just removed it... Ansh6 6 6 02:11, 22 January 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^(talk) 20:07, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per CutOffTies; a #1 record with a couple of independent sources, albeit relatively brief ones. --01:55, 1 February 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Lau Hui Lay[edit]

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

No indication of significance and reliable third party references. Itsalleasy (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments about no significance and unreliable resources, http://www.sip.org.sg/council.php is able to prove that Lau holds the President position. http://mypaper.sg/news/future-office-your-backyard-20131121 http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/waterfront-provides-recreation-space-helps-water-needs#inside http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20121209-388560/3.html http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tv/tvshows/sgplus/staycation-singapore-is/925708.html Above are news websites with articles/program that feature him as SIP president.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 54642u (talk • contribs) 07:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 January 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^(talk) 18:26, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 1 February 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 Paris_By_Night#List_of_episodes. ...as with the others slakr^\ talk / 13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris By Night 105[edit]

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

This is part of a series of articles about individual episodes of a Vietnamese variety program known as Paris By Night. I am nominating it for deletion because it does not include any reliable third-party sources and makes no claim of independent notability. See also the previous AfDs for Paris By Night 70 and Paris By Night 106. Contested PROD. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - plentiful sources exist in Vietnamese, and the series itself is heavily discussed in English sources. These films/concerts... not really simply a TV series, but a series of programs of the best known Vietnamese overseas show, are also notable back in Vietnam where they are emblematic of overseas Vietnamese culture (and lost pre-1975 South Vietnamese culture). These shows are heavily entwined with artist/songwriter/song/actor bios. How is Wikipedia improved by deleting them? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is about the notability of this specific episode, not the entire series. Can you provide evidence that it passes WP:GNG? If not, it should be deleted; it's not enough to just say "plentiful sources exist".--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plentiful sources exist in Vietnamese, and since the composition of each show varies, each is notable Google. In any case more than exist for Now That's What I Call Music! 49 (U.S. series) or for episodes of US TV shows In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the Paris By Night show series is one of the most popular and well-known Vietnamese programs, overseas and inside Vietnam, and widely sold, so it is the complete opposite of "lacking notability". Paris By Night forms and crucial part of Vietnamese music and culture, to the point that there's a saying that "a bottle of fish sauce, a bowl of pho and Paris By Night—that’s the epitome of the Vietnamese family". Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the Paris By Night show doesn't mean its 105th episode should have its own article, since notability is inherited. The notability for individual episodes is determined by their coverage in reliable, third party sources, and so far the article has none of them. Unless this changes, the article should be deleted as non-notable.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps i should be adding refs to forum after forum thread that talk about PBN 105, if forum posts are even considered RS. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're not, as with all other self-published sources, including blogs, wikis and personal websites.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that...Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 January 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^(talk) 17:45, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 1 February 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PROSE modeling language[edit]

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

Poorly intelligible and largely promotional article with lots of OR. Many references, but the relevant ones are to works with just a handful of citations and/or self-citations to the article author's papers and his self-published book that predicts a kind of scientific revolution if only "holistic modeling" were to gain ground in software engineering. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following was left on the talk page, I've copied it here. Rwessel (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of modifying the PROSE modeling langauge page to conform to Wikipedia policy. I intend to delete any promotional flavor and links to the MetaCalculus website. I will also attempt to make the article less cryptic and easier to understand. Beartham (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 January 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^(talk) 17:42, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll give some latitude for online referencing of a 1970s technology. I am getting a lot of search hits which gives me a good impression of notability. The quality of the article is not a reason to delete but if the nom and other reviewers are truly offended by its presence in mainspace, perhaps it can be moved to WP:AFC. ~KvnG 18:41, 8 February 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The notability of this place can not be established. Google search returns only 1 hit ([30]). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 January 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^(talk) 17:36, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 1 February 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) 12:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Mill, Bongaigaon[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this place exists. Google search returns 0 hits [31]. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 January 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^(talk) 17:36, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas nomination.TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The page can be reintroduced if evidence for the existence of the place is found. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:47, 2 February 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HD 74576[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies, and not visible to the naked eye. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention in standard sources, no mention in the abstract of the references article. I looked into a "merge to Vela (constellation)", but can't find "HD 74576" listed in any list of stars. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 6 February 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony[edit]

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

Apparently not notable. A Google search found no useful 3rd-party sources, and no news coverage. The organization seems to have published a few pamphlets (according to a google books search) and some of them have been footnoted in other published books, but I find no actual discussion of even those pamphlets, much less the organization as such. A Notability tag was placed and removed without fixing the issues (although the creator may have honestly believed they were fixed, not fully understanding Wikipedia Policy on such matters). Currently no cited sources except the group's own web page. Does not appear to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This page should be deleted unless proper sources can be found. DES ^(talk) 17:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- a small religious publisher that has been going for nearly a century seems worth having an article on. Keeping the works of people like Muller and Spurgeon in print is useful work. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 19 January 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^(talk) 16:38, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 1 February 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 deleted. By JzG as G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 02:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album, any information could easily be contained in discograpy. (Redirect reverted by article creator). This is little more than fancruft. TheLongTone (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - non-notable records of artists with articles are not subject to speedy deletion. Sam navera (talk) 6:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an articles for deletion discussion, not a speedy deletion nomination. Note that the article creator describes the record as non-notable.TheLongTone (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I would normally support merging such a page to the band's discography, but the article does have enough information and references to justify a separated page. It could benefit from better sourcing, though. The ones we have for now are mostly self-published or mere brief mentions. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:55, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been deleted, G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban.TheLongTone (talk) 23:46, 3 February 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures of Grimm[edit]

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

in-universe, 99% unsourced, WP:OR overly detailed and WP:NOT. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy WP:LISTN. I was planning on eventually trying to fix this article, but I don't think it's fixable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entries that can be reliably sourced could be covered in List of Grimm characters, but essentially this looks like fan-wiki info. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge. This article definitely needs fixing. But instead of fixing it, some of the info could be integrated in the episode summaries on the season pages: every episode introduces a new creature that could be described briefly in the summary (name, physical appearance, mythological connection / etymology). General info about Wesen could be included in the main Grimm (TV series) article. --Salanola Ortoluron (talk) 12:22, 6 February 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verónica Homs[edit]

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

No indication of significance and reliable third party links Itsalleasy (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 18 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability established, and contrary to the nomination rationale there are plenty of reliable third party references (La Republica, El Comercio, RPP are widely known mainstream media). --Soman (talk) 17:28, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 1 February 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putani Agent 123[edit]

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

No claim to notability. Fails WP: NFILMS. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable motion picture made for children in Kannada language and the film is popular in Karnataka. It is a noted children film and regulerly screened in film festicals. (this fact added to article)Rayabhari (talk) 14:13, 8 February 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simhada Mari Sainya[edit]

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

No claim to notability. Fails WP: NFILMS. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I did a quick google and youtube search, results point that the movie was a relatively major production with several prominent actors. Albeit this won't serve as WP:RS in article, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2yLPK13HyQ points that the film was notable. --Soman (talk) 17:13, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 1 February 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 Asian Institute. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for South Asian Studies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not separately notable. A Centre within an Institute within a School within a major University. The furtherest justified level for such articles usually is the first order division, the school, and conceivably the second if it is very notable & can be shown as such by 3rd party sources, but almost never the third--the practical criterion that far down the chain is world-fanous. These are not just my own preferences, but a summary of what has been done in almost all Most previous AfD discussions. A purely promotional article, characterized, as so many similar articles are, by a list of lectures given at the Centre, and a substantial biography of the director. It should have a mention in the article on the Asian Institute--if even that article is justifiable. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per previous AfD conclusion. The article is effectively the same as it was when considered in the previous AfD. The post-AfD merge notice was removed without comment by an IP, which is effectively what brings this back again. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asian Institute. Not separately notable and best practice is to merge to the lowest level notable body. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:46, 1 February 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian A. Levine[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why notability may be presumed in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are mostly trivial mentions and/or not independent. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Small GS h-index. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Seems to have plenty of references. (Hey, I have an h-index of one. How cool is that? ) Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool, but not cool enough to get you past WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:48, 2 February 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.