Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 February	4 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 redirect to List of prizes, medals and awards. deleting first because the present content is unsourced and inaccurate. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Award ceremony[edit]

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

Unsourced. Dictionary definition, followed by list of several awards ceremonies, giving "date" which is highly unreliable because in most (all?) cases the ceremony will not be on a fixed date of the year (eg 2014 Academy awards are 2 March, but this table lists "2/24" ). Not a useful article or list. PamD 23:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of prizes, medals and awards or similar; redundant with that, and most entries are on List of film awards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of prizes, medals and awards. Seems like a good idea to me. Could also be deleted, but it doesn't seem absolutely necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of prizes, medals and awards or Category:Award ceremonies. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and go to award or List of prizes, medals and awards.Whitescorp34 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of prizes, medals and awards.LM2000 (talk) 20:48, 9 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) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Davor Pavlovic[edit]

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

This article is an autobiography. All the sources cited are books by the author/subject of the article. I cant find any reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, sources are reliable. I agree that the article should be updated so as to highlight the contribution of others. Aliceswift1998 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)— Aliceswift1998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What the nom meant was that there are no secondary sources. Every single reference was authored, in part, by the subject, so they are not independent. Agricola44 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The PNAS article from 2003 (currently reference 3) has been cited about 200 times (Web of Science, almost 350 on GScholar). However, that is the only paper that made some impact. Pavlovic's GS profile indicates a grand total of 448 citations (including that PNAS article...) for an h-index of 6. too early, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Academic criteria WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied. In fact both criteria 1 and criteria 2 are met:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. -PNAS paper has received over 340 citations [[1]] and it has only been published in 2003, I would say that is quite an impact in its scholarly discipline. To put that into context, 2013 nobel laureate RW Schekman has 371 citations for his most cited 1992 Cell paper [[2]]. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. - evidenced by the award from European Society of Cardiology in 2013 [[3]]. Musgrave james (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep should be kept but heavily moderated. I propose excluding some of the personal information such as scholarship and smaller studies such as Glycobiology journal study as that journal has relatively low impact factor. However, the PNAS article has a very high citation number and and for this alone author contribution is worth keeping. Musgrave james (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Musgrave james (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Musgrave james has attempted to interfere with this discussion by removing tags and has been warned by another ed. Agricola44 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The text of the article with respect to the p7 discovery published in PNAS is very misleading. It implies Pavlovic made the discovery independently, whereas he was actually a grad student. With rare exception in life science doctoral programs, it is the lab PI who directs the work and who is credited with discovery, as evidenced by having "senior authorship" on the paper (as is the case here). The subject has not yet established an independent scientific reputation – WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that too much emphasis is put on the discovery of p7 although I would not call it misleading. I have modified the article so as to highlight the contribution of others. Aliceswift1998 (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think one well-cited student paper and not much else should be good enough for WP:PROF, in part because it's too difficult to tell how much credit is due to the student and how much to his or her advisor. WP:BIO1E also seems relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All multi-author scientific studies suffer from the same problem, i.e. who is credited with the discovery. Nevertheless, scientific output following on from the PNAS paper is by no means negligible. Aliceswift1998 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Aliceswift1998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. It looks to me like the article is now acceptable. References are reliable sources of information i.e. scientific journals. It is not an orphan article anymore. Andrewpolic (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Andrewpolic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. More WP:SOCKS are now attempting to interfere. The commentator(s) should please be aware that this behavior is almost always counter-productive. The best way to save the article is to find sources that demonstrate the subject's notability. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:56, 11 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. Kush is not the same as mount or ben, but more akin to shining, bright, or happy. In any case, the ~~phoneme~~ word or morpheme is so common as to make a list of such toponyms to be a nonsensical and indiscriminate list. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of mountains with Kush in the name[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTN. How about List of mountains with Mount in the name instead? Bazonka (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per non, also. Why is this a thing...? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it with fire - Obvious delete. Shadowjams (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. I have also proposed three similar pages for deletion: Kush (Mountains), Kosh (mountains), and Kash (Kurdish). Cnilep (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (was going to make the same point that we don't have a list of "Mountains called Ben ..."); the other 3 pages I've moved, redirected, and redirected respectively to Kush (word) (added to the dab page at Kush), as they seem to be about the variably-spelled word, not about mountains. It might have some value as an encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 February 2014‎
Delete - not helpful to anyone. SchreiberBike talk 05:36, 9 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Brian Quinn[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources trivial (ie bookseller's sites) or effectively self-published. PROD removed because he is going to be the host of a TV show: WP:TOOSOON TheLongTone (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Due to the fact there is already at least one Conor Quinn on wiki Conor Brian Quinn had to be created to differentiate from others with the same Christian and surname. However, nearly all publications and appearances by the New Zealand Conor Quinn, including previous TV and movie credits, editorial credits, author credits and business activities, all occur under the name Conor Quinn in New Zealand and internationally. As well as providing relevant and interesting information on New Zealand's Conor Quinn, one of the reasons of the page is to differentiate Conor 'Brian' Quinn from any other Conor Quinn residing in a different country. This combination of factors should provide sufficient justification for including a Conor Brian Quinn page on Wikipedia.
These sources are for Conor Quinn author and editor credits books - scholar - JSTOR - free images
CallanGrey1972 (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find, but the problem with just giving links is that a lot of those links might have false positives. In other words, you can say that there are a lot of hits for the name "Conor Quinn", but there are likely a lot of people with that name in various fields. Also given that many of these sites tend to list authors by "Last name, first name", it's also likely that they might pull up hits for a Quinn Conor. Basically, we need specific sources and not just a general search link. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some false positives for a Conor McDonough Quinn (mostly in relation to Problems and prospects in the Penobscot Dictionary) that comes up as simply "Conor Quinn", so any other searchers need to be careful of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once I began searching and weeded out the obvious and not so obvious false positives, it became fairly clear that this specific Conor Quinn isn't particularly notable. He doesn't pass notability guidelines at all. Quinn has had some dealings with large corporations and other notable people/companies, but this in and of itself doesn't give notability since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by this fact. I can't find anything that has specifically focused on Quinn as the subject of the author and his work as a whole doesn't seem to have been widely cited anywhere enough to where he'd be considered a pioneer or widely respected figure in his field(s). Now before anyone begins to argue that he is, the catch 22 of that part of the notability guidelines is that it's expected that someone who is that widely respected or cited will have received lengthy coverage about them in reliable sources. Quinn hasn't received that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:IS. I strongly suspect COI as creator has created only one article and contributed to related articles and it also seems an unlikely coincidence that creator and subject share same year of birth. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's fair to say I am biased but it was pretty interesting to find this page on Wikipedia, with strangers discussing my notability :) FYI - you will only find around 10% of my publications can be easily accessed online. I have written about 100 notable research reports on a variety of subjects and ghost written a number of successful books, which can't be named for obvious reasons; another notability catch 22, with Catch 22 of course my favourite publication. As far as onscreen credits you would have to talk to my agent as I try to avoid discussing them, considering I do have a very humble streak; another notability catch 22 I'd suspect. I would anticipate this page being deleted but it was flattering to find it and I will keep the screen shot of this discussion as an enjoyable keepsake. Keep up the good work Wikipedia. C. — ConorBrianQuinn (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC) ConorBrianQuinn (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Struck, sock account of page author. Amalthea 12:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An inquiry of the article author as to why there is not more content regarding this Conor's work with endangered and at-risk bird species in NZ? As a Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Member I know he has authored/co-authored perhaps a dozen or more high profile reports on the subject and monitoring these bird species. However I can only find one online. I have attended a number of seminars he has conducted on bird monitoring and at risk species (as the face of First Words In Fauna) and know he works with a number of high profile organisations across the country. I was under the impression he was a notable expert in NZ regarding bird monitoring and species recognition so surprised there isn't more on this in this article and whether this would make a difference in notability stakes; perhaps because there isn't so much online coverage/sources regarding this work? If more information was included on the subject I'm sure there would be more keeps than deletes. AllAboutTheBirds (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Struck, sock account of page author. Amalthea 12:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Caught in Catch 22 indeed. Delete per Tokyogirl79 - SimonLyall (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - as an author/editor Conor Brian Quinn is very well known in literary circles in NZ and his work is highly respected. The quotes in this independent article also seem to lend some weight to notability with his opinion sought on the state of historical fiction writing in NZ. Have also read dozens of his book reviews in high profile offline publications and found a few online ones here online book reviews. DuncanFallowell55 (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Struck, sock account of page author. Amalthea 12:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep After some in-depth research I would argue that there is a prime face case for inclusion as per WP:BIO criteria as they are worthy of notice due to obvious success across a number of diverse fields, even if it is just in New Zealand :) The subject of the article seems to be especially well renowned in the field of bird monitoring/at risk bird species with a lot of reports published, but only accessible through commercial vendors. Perhaps this information should be included in a more detailed article? CrookedwithaK (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Struck, sock account of page author. Amalthea 12:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionIs the ornithologist the person about whom the article is written? There's no mention of these activities there.TheLongTone (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Yes, this Conor is also the ornithologist and the company listed as First Words in Fauna is an environmental monitoring company that work with local government organisations and volunteer groups. I am the writer of the article and it's my first one so was unsure of how much detail to include and what weight to give each field the subject is involved in? I decided to try to write an article about someone local who is well known NZ wide. But when I researched him online there was more editing, writing and business related stuff than bird related. If the high profile bird monitoring reports can only be referenced if you buy them how can I include them in the article? And would this make a difference for "worthy of notice"? CallanGrey1972 (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they have been published they can be used as references, sources don't have to be available online.TheLongTone (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has met the notability requirements. Suggestion to CallanGrey1972 is to copy the article into your Sandbox to keep the work you have put in and resubmit when/if Connor Quinn gets more notable. His ornithological work could well bring him inside the requirsments eventually. NealeFamily (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is their request as well, in case of deletion. Amalthea 07:39, 11 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. Per established consensus regarding the appropriateness of Wikipedia articles on secondary educational establishments provided their existence can be reliably proven. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aljezur International School[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, almost all content added by users with WP:COI CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By long-standing precedent and consensus, all secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that? Because that seems quite silly to me. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every single AfD. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Whether it seems silly to you or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES shows what is happening, not why, but that is what I asked for, thank you. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entry has used an existing Wikipedia template for schools. In proposing to delete this entry you are setting a precedent for the deletion of all entries for Schools. -- Aljezur (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am settign a precedent for deleteing non notable schools (which to be fair is most schools). CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not setting a precedent. You're arguing against an existing consensus. You're entitled to your views, but it's perfectly clear that consensus is against you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this seems a perfectly respectable stub. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG - what is needed is a search in Portuguese. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but I would like to see those sources found (and added) before I agree that this article should not be deleted (or merged).CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Verifiable secondary school articles are typically retained in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is what is happening, not why, so is not a valid argument. Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) is an essay (a poor one in my opnion) that simply repeats things about notability, "Tousands of high schools for which no independent reliable sources have been published. These schools are often very small, very new, or not considered true schools (for example, being homeschools or being businesses that offer sports, arts, or tutoring classes)." which seems to apply to this article. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES isn't being used as an argument as such. It's being used to prove that a clear precedent and consensus exists on the notability of secondary schools. And that's how Wikipedia works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Verifiable secondary school articles are typically retained in the encyclopedia. OUTCOMES may be technically an essay but it imparts no opinions, it merely accurately documents current practices as clearly established by long standing precedents of thousands of closures. AfD is not the place for individual editors to attempt back-door changes to policies, guidelines, or accepted practices just because they personally find them silly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 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 delete. I'll be redirecting the title to Shayne Bradley as a likely misspelling. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Bradley[edit]

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

Was at AfD before as a bundled request but it was suggested that an individual AfD would be better. My original concern is still valid - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Has not played in a Fully professional league or received significant media coverage other than routine mentions. JMHamo (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given the previous AFD closed as a keep only a few hours ago, perhaps the nominator can clarify which of the 3 articles he though were a Keep, given that he appears to have renominated them all. Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Minnock[edit]

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

Was at AfD before as a bundled request but it was suggested that an individual AfD would be better. My original concern is still valid - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Has not played in a Fully professional league or received significant media coverage other than routine mentions. JMHamo (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:42, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. I'm convinced now that the article probably more or less meets our criteria for notability, and there're no dissenting views. Herostratus (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Bernie Company[edit]

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

Unnotable entity, does not pass WP:CORP. There's no significant coverage, just a few press-release type notices.

The environment stuff is not that notable. Not excusing them, but jewelry making uses a lot of toxic chemicals and its hard to be perfect. OK they were pretty bad, but not to the level of notability IMO since there're no newspaper stories. The links have gone dead anyway, but I think most of the info is re-obtainable. But note that it's government documents (primary sources) not news stories. Ditto the info on their jewelry lines. A couple press-release type notices in trade mags. Probably only WWD is notable and that's still a trade mag. Not one single story in a newspaper or general-purpose magazine that I found, never mind an in-depth profile.

FWIW they just sent someone over to gussy up the article, and the person is putting in promotional material even after being advised; they're active now so beware the current version might not be the correct one, check the history if it looks wrong. Not worth fighting over since they're unnotable IMO, and what with the environmental stuff we're probably doing them a favor not to have the article anyway, so delete. Herostratus (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

Los Angeles Times
Info World
Accessories magazine
Accessories magazine
Women's Wear Daily (short article)

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Hmmmmm, OK, thanks for finding the LA TImes article which I missed. That is an in-depth article in a major general-audience publication. The last three are really just product announcements and don't really qualify under WP:CORPDEPTH IMO (it's arguable), and the Info World piece, while longer, is just a specialty article in specialty mag about them upgrading their computer systems; it's not something we can really use in the article. And WP:CORPDEPTH talks about "multiple" sources and uses the plural, and the LA Times story is just one source. Still, it is definitely now "possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about [the] organization", so there's that. It certainly puts them on the bubble at worst and is a pretty good argument for keeping the article. Herostratus (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

80,000 Hours[edit]

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

Article mostly written by organisation. Most links establishing relevance are to organisation's website. Violates WP:SPIP JohnQuincyAdams (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article reads and is basically an ad/listing for this organisation. I don't really see how every new organisation needs a specific article about it on Wikipedia. Not very encyclopaedic or noteworthy. JohnQuincyAdams (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Eight of thirteen links establishing relevance are not to the organization's website. They are links to major news organizations. This is sufficient to establish credibility. While members of the organization have produced some of the content of this page, its importance has been externally verified, so it should not be deleted. If anything, it should be marked a stub, and its content should be expanded. 140.180.190.177 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — 140.180.190.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep 80,000 Hours is one of the best known organisations in the effective altruist movement. Article needs expanding (IMO). --Davidcpearce (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep As above poster says, 80,000 Hours is a leader in effective altruism. Wikipedia rightly has a well-developed entry on the movement, which links to 80,000 Hours and mentions its importance. Therefore, we should maintain the 80,000 Hours entry, as well. -- mhs5392

— Duplicate !vote: 140.180.190.177 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete Not convinced by the argument that some movement which itself seems to be of questionable notability finds this company notable. It also does, as OP mentions, sound a little dodge that the page seems to be edited primarily by people affiliated with the company. The article doesn't really carry much information or interesting content, and seems written like a bit of an advert or landing page for a site. Not really wikipedia material. 129.67.116.46 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This organisation sounds like a cult. But more importantly, its purported notability seems mostly hyped up by people employed by it, based on it's talk page. Can we get some quality control here? UtilityFunction9 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't cults tend to solicit money rather than give it away? I first came across 80,000 Hours on the eyebrow-raising http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15820786: "Banking 'can be an ethical career choice'".)--Davidcpearce (talk) 14:14, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, a declaration of potential conflict of interest: I am a former employee of 80,000 Hours, and I am currently employed by the Centre for Effective Altruism, the organisation that contains 80,000 Hours. However I have not worked for 80,000 Hours for several months, and was not asked to contribute to this talk page. The reason I am engaging in this conversation is because as a former employee of 80,000 Hours I know of several articles about 80,000 Hours that have not been considered when weighing up its notability. Second, I have not engaged in a deletion discussion before, though I have been editing wikipedia for many years, so please let me know if I am not engaging with this discussion in the correct manner. I have copied the bulk of this argument from the 80,000 Hours talk page as it appears to be discussing a similar topic.

You have argued that this article clearly violates Wikipedia:SPIP, which states "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it". Thus I hope that by listing a number of independent sources which have written about 80,000 Hours I will counter your claim. The following sources have written independently either about 80,000 Hours or about earning-to-give, an idea that 80,000 Hours first popularised. All of these sources directly mention 80,000 Hours. Note that I have copied this list from here:

TED talk: Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism
BBC online: Banking ‘can be an ethical career choice’
BBC Radio 4: Today programme with Ian Hislop
Washington Post: Join Wall Street - Save the World
Daily Mail: Young professionals joining Wall Street save world
CNBC: Wall Street Saves the World!
NPR: Want to give back? Get a job on Wall Street
Wall Street Journal Careers Blog: On Our Radar
Washington Post Online: Join Wall Street. Save The World.
Chronicle of Philanthropy: A New Donor Movement Seeks to Put Data Ahead of Passion
Daily Mail Online: The young professionals who believe their best chance at trying to save the world is by joining Wall Street and making millions
Prospect Magazine: Being Superman
~~Philanthropy UK: Oxford students start philanthropic movement~~

I think this link is broken Niel.Bowerman (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Euromoney: Impact Investing: the big business of small donors
Third Sector: Banking can be more ethical than the voluntary sector, says Oxford academic
Africa Development and Politics: Who does more for development: bankers or ‘aid workers’?
Ethics in Public and Professional Life: Banker vs. Aid Worker
High Flying Ladies: Doing good by getting rich
Desert News: Are you underemployed? Here’s how you can improve your job prospects
National Review: Rise of the Singerians

According to WP:AUD "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Thus I would argue that 80,000 Hours is "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. Niel.Bowerman (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of how things proceed from here is that others can contribute to this debate and then an external moderator will decide whether to delete the article based on the consensus of the discussion thus far. If this is incorrect and I need to take further action please could someone let me know here? Thanks, Niel.Bowerman (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add some of the above media references to the article, however I could not find any obviously unsubstantiated statements in the article that could be referenced to any of the above articles. After reading WP:NOTABILITY I have concluded that this is OK, and the article is still notable. In particular WP:NOTABILITY states "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Niel.Bowerman (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thus I argue the accusation of WP:SPIP on its own is not enough to justify deletion. The article does not read as biased to me, yet I am aware that I have a potential conflict of interest, and thus perhaps the community could rephrase the article in order to reduce the perception of bias if that is the issue at hand? Niel.Bowerman (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have a problem with COI editing as much as anyone, but the list of sources above seems pretty difficult to dispute. I haven't looked through all of them but already see 4 or 5 that quite clearly not just mention but cover 80,000 Hours. Passes GNG and CORPDEPTH given this list. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hope that people with ties to this organization (which, of course, includes its parent organization) would note the general attitudes Wikipedians have on the subject of COI (i.e. frustration, defensiveness, suspicion, hostility -- and all for good reasons, especially as of late) and, assuming this ends with keep/no consensus, respectfully abstain entirely from future edits to this article. Let other uninvolved parties do the work of going through the sources above and what's current in the article to ensure an article is crafted that meets Wikipedia standards. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy to do this Rhododendrites. Thank you for your help in directing me to the correct place to post my comments. I will happily refrain from future wikipedia articles except to flag factual inaccuracies. Niel.Bowerman (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclaimer: I have a conflict of interest because I work for the Centre for Effective Altruism, the umbrella organisation to which 80,000 Hours belong. However I'm a longstanding Wikipedia editor and am confident that this article meets the standard notability criteria.) Thomas Ash (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references here are adequate and it is not necessary to delete it.Whitescorp34 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this does appear to be a real organisation for which there seem to be real references and a likely prospect of more cropping up, as time goes by and the organisation operates. We can always revisit this if it becomes stagnant and of less value to the encyclopaedia... but for now it just needs some less-involved people to develop it. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:57, 13 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. I will be happy to userfy on request if the article author wishes to work on it. JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Dowd[edit]

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

Unsourced CV-type article about a television professional. The article was speedily deleted as promotional, but discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 January 27 disagreed about whether this was appropriate, so I'm referring the matter to AfD. Possible grounds for deletion include WP:BLP, WP:BIO or WP:NOT (unless rewritten as an encyclopedia article). This is a procedural nomination, I'm neutral. Sandstein 20:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just someone's CV, and thus essentially an advert. If notable, would require a total rewrite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A list of credits demonstrating that an appropriate SNG is satisfied is not an advertisement. If the article had a one-sentence lede like "Tim Dowd is a British television director" and the credits were presented as a table rather than a list, there wouldn't be much of an argument. Arguments over article format generally don't belong at AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which "appropriate SNG" are you saying is met by a list of credits? WP:DIRECTOR for example I don't believe is met by merely listing credits. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs, no assertion of notability. Google doesn't show much, IMDB shows a mundane list of episodes he's directed on various shows, much like the WP article. Happy to look again if the article is updated soon. Incubate is a possibility. Szzuk (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:27, 9 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hera Pheri 4[edit]

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

WP:NF Anup Mehra ^✈ 19:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Delete per WP:NFF. Wikipedia is not here to provide advance publicity. There is not even a release date for this film, and the total coverage in the only reference is "Then there is "Hera Pheri 4" by Firoz Nadiadwala". That is not the significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources required by WP:Notability and WP:Notability (films). JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is too soon and per nom. Tito☸Dutta 19:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of now it fails WP:NFF but will be notable later. In that case incubation might be the answer but the content is not that good. Soham 12:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft namespace until such point as the film reaches notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing in the article that actually says when or even if the movie will be made. The reff is to an interview with Anu Malik saying actually nothing except "Then there is "Hera Pheri 4" by Firoz Nadiadwala". There is nothing that confirms all those artists in the article will actually be in the movie once or if its ever made. I say delete. Its to early to make this article.Stepojevac (talk) 22:13, 15 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) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parallware[edit]

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

I previously placed a Prod on this article with the rationale "No evidence that this recently-released compiler has attained notability.". The Prod was endorsed by a second editor but was then removed by an IP (at the same site as many of the article's past edits) without comment or improvement. Hence I am now bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources, let alone with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:31, 9 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) 01:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evo Morales grounding incident[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the news. Once-off incident with no lasting notability. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had split this out from the Edward Snowden article. That article explains a lasting—or at least, ongoing—effect of the grounding:

[Snowden] decided to remain in Russia because whilst he was "considering possibilities for asylum in Latin America, the United States forced down the Bolivian President’s plane." He said that he would travel from Russia if there was no interference from the US government.

As described in the article Aftermath of the global surveillance disclosure, it led to a meeting attended by several presidents:

[...] the presidents of Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela and Suriname joined Correa and a representative from Brazil, in Cochabamba, Bolivia to discuss the incident. Presidents Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua offered Snowden asylum after the meeting.

This news story (archived copy here) which appeared on Yahoo News on Sunday (six months after the event) calls it "a dramatic international kerfuffle".

WP:PERSISTENCE says "That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable."

WP:N says

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

The nomination seems to be saying that this event comes under the part of the What Wikipedia is not policy about "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" (WP:ROUTINE says something similar). As I wrote when contesting his PROD, I don't agree that this resembles those. But even if it did, I believe that it also meets the notability guideline for events. —rybec 20:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bolivia–United States relations. Not independently notable per WP:EVENT (which says "most ... political news" is "usually not notable"): it may have had consequences in conjunction with other events (the tensions between Morales' administration and the USA; the Snowden affair), but it makes sense to cover it in conjunction with those events. There are no shortage of merge targets: Bolivia–United States relations, Edward_Snowden#Morales_plane_incident, Evo Morales. If someone can show that this event specifically had lasting effects it would be notable (a conference a few days later doesn't seem to be a lasting effect, and it only played a small role in the Snowden story - these recent articles from the top of a Google search don't mention it[4][5][6]). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some old discussion about this at Talk:Edward_Snowden/Archive_3. Look for the phrase "Morales plane incident" scattered among several sections. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as it meets WP:Notability even in the face of WP:NOTNEWS. I have a strong recommendation that it be editorially (i.e. without the prejudice imposed by an AFD) merged to an appropriate article or articles such as those mentioned by Colapeninsula at 11:01, 4 Feburary 2014 (UTC) above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- notable diplomatic incident. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the level of detail is appropriate for such a significant incident, but would be excessive if it was merged into either Edward Snowden (who wasn't even directly involved) or Evo Morales. – Smyth\^talk 11:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The WP:NOTNEWS policy is always misapplied, and this is no exception, as the policy actually says to treat recent events just like older ones. The GNG is well met. But in this case, even playing the game of demonstrating exceptional 'enduring' notability, this incident has had a long term effect on the bilateral relations of several nations. Wnt (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a major event in the Snowden story (but too big to mention only in that article), and with regard to US-Latin American relations. The effects have only begun to be discussed, although not by US media. Effects reported this summer, such as mass protests in multiple SA countries, are not included in the article, so it may give the impression of a less impactful story. It could be two to three times the current size if editors had time to tell the full story. (Independent editors are in short supply it seems.) petrarchan47 t c 20:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've expanded the article, but there's still some important details that are missing (Role of the United States in the grounding incident, outcome of Evo Morales' lawsuit, etc) -A1candidate (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major diplomatic incident with multiple countries adn the UN making top-level commentary. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:37, 9 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) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Balochistan[edit]

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

No reliable source can be found about this issue :)Ladsgroup^بحث 18:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- Agreed with the deletion rationale provided by the nominator. No reliable sources. It is just there for use in the terrorism proscribed group's article mainly. Fai zan 16:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:37, 9 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. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Questel[edit]

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

Not notable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of limited notability. JFW | T@lk 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; seems to fall short on notability. bobrayner (talk) 01:12, 10 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) 19:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwartbucks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a currency created as a joke/experiment with no legitimate uses. No coverage besides from its creator. KonveyorBelt 17:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable by any standard. Stalwartbucks is discussed in detail in a single “article”/post written by the currency's creator in Business Insider, which I'd contend is a blog rather than a reliable news source, and it was briefly mentioned in an opinion (not news) piece in Bloomberg, which was also syndicated to the Boston Globe. I think this Wikipedia article would meet the promotional standards for a Speedy Delete, but I don't want to spend the time to check all the details and figure out how to do that. There are dozens of new cryptocurrencies created each week, and Stalwartbucks is an example of one that's custom-created by a third party for under $10. ––Agyle (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:47, 9 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. Per established consensus regarding the appropriateness of Wikipedia articles on secondary educational establishments provided their existence can be reliably proven. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arambagh Girls High School[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. No references. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By long-standing precedent and consensus, all secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page was nominated only a few hours after creation and I see no WP:BEFORE due diligence nor a search in local language. We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Verified secondary schools are typically retained in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a long history of not deleting secondary schools, if their existence is verifiable. Salih (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as per above. All verifiable Secondary and Higher Secondary schools are notable as per long history at Deletion debates. Someone close it as WP:SNOW Jethwarp (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:NHS and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The schools is widely known in the district.Bisswajit 16:41, 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) 19:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Ballesh[edit]

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

Not yet notable according to WP:MUSICBIO: autobiography of non-notable son of notable musician. Mainly sourced by his many blogs. No coverage found online from reliable sources. Ruby Murray 17:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been working on this article for a while and I can't find any sources that satisfy notability under WP:MUSICBIO. PaintedCarpet (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 9 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) 22:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Slaight[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Slaight is a leader and world renowkned innovator of theater for the young. He has worked with a number of countries in developing new works and cultural exchanges that have significantly changed the face of youth theater programs. His "New Plays" book series, featuring works from some of the world's top playwrights including a Pulitzer Prize winner, has provided a treasure trove of new work that specifically addresses the voice of the young. These works offer school programs relevant and age specific works that speak to issues young people experience and do so with a voice that they can relate to.[CJ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.89.17 (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the IP editor: All that is very nice but do you have either an opinion as to whether this article should be kept or deleted; and do you have any relevant arguments? Please read the guidelines referenced at the top of the edit window before replying. John from Idegon (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete multiple issues. I'm not seeing anything on the page that indicates anything with WP:GNG. Also article is written as if it's self-promotional material WP:PROMOTION. Quick search myself didn't turn up anything either. --MikeMan67 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 9 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. Kusma's move suggestion may have merit if the article isn't expanded to include other theories. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Adolf Hitler conspiracy theories[edit]

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

Uses only unreliable sources unfortunately; cf The Daily Mail. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is really just an article about Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler, which has received various reviews and coverage.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Either rename to focus on the book, or add information on other conspiracy theories. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main Adolf Hitler article, assuming there is enough reliably sourced material; otherwise delete. I understand there is at least one other Hitler survival theory — in a just-published book asserting that he escaped to Brazil and died in 1984 — but even if we include material about this new theory, there isn't enough IMO for a full article. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, but two excellent suggestions above. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDFORMAT: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and of course I would not have done so- and did not do so until two editors made suggestions, both of which had elements I agreed with, and therefore had to comment because I was 'indicating otherwise'!!!! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since (as best I can tell) you still support deletion of the article, I believe the best approach here would be for you to mark your latest comment as "Comment", instead of "Delete". This is more than obsessive nit-picking, BTW; I understand there are automated tools which track AfD's and tally !votes according to their initial boldface tags. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...that's the second time I've heard 'votes' mentioned. Anyway, it wasn't my latest comment. It was my first. And only. Until it kept getting removed-! Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "votes". I said "!votes" ("not-votes") — a common Wikipediaism which reminds us that discussions like this one are not really "votes" determining majority rule, but are part of a consensus-building process where policy-based rationales for positions are more important than mere numbers. (See WP:NOTVOTE.) And I called this your "latest" comment because I was counting your original proposal to delete the article as your first remark on the subject. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is The Daily Mail not a reliable source? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tabloid. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what? How does that make it unreliable? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are an inordinate number of discussions in the WP:RS archives where the question of the reliability of tabloids is discussed- they are easy to find. Can I also point out that 'Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion.' Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing written in policy then? As I thought, another weak deletion arguement. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is a WP:RS for the fact that the book was published. The fact that a book is reported on or reviewed in a newspaper hardly adds to the authority of the book it is reporting on. Whether the underlying book is or is not reliable must be judged by the quality of its sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything good to Death of Adolf Hitler. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the mutliple sources found by Colapeninsula, and WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Colapeninsula has found much more sources & so passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It cannot be merged as a section into the article Death of Adolf Hitler, as it was soundly decided to keep it out of there by consensus, see the talk page. That is what led to this separate article listed herein. It should not be included in the main article of Adolf Hitler, either. It would give WP:UNDUE weight and frankly I am sure it would be rejected. Therefore, given there are conspiracy theory pages on what happened to John F. Kennedy, Princess Diana and others, it should be allowed to stand alone. I agree it needs additions and some ce work, but again believe the page should be kept. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - the content would not be accepted into main Hitler article as it would give undue weight to this one book (and because we already have a separate article about his death), and it's already been discussed via a recent request for comment and the consensus was not to include this fringe material in the article Death of Adolf Hitler. The article is off to a good start, and needs expansion with additional conspiracy theories. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was decided not to include the material in Death of Adolf Hitler then that means this page is a classic POV WP:CONTENTFORK and must be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 02:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily. We have Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, even though these subjects are not mentioned in the main article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was for BLP concerns. In any case, the Death of Adolf Hitler article must have some mention of the best-known conspiracy theories. Abductive (reasoning) 02:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Abductive, it has already been decided, it is not going into the Death Of Adolf Hiter article; this for WP:UNDUE and WP:fringe reasons. Therefore the other opinions are what is on the table. Kierzek (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is also an other book Hunting Hitler: New Scientific Evidence That Hitler Escaped Nazi Germany #Xacobi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xacobi (talk • contribs) 06:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to Death of Adolf Hitler. This seems to be a classic POV fork. For a long time, it was not totally clear what had happened to Hitler, because Russian soldiers buried or reburied his body, without his fate being officially logged. After many years, the Russians responsible came forward and the matter was cleared up to the satisfaction of all but FRINGE commentators. The controversy is probably noteworthy (hence notable), but is best dealt with in a NPOV manner in the death article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler, as the article is about that book, not about other conspiracy theories. —Kusma (t·c) 19:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Colascione[edit]

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

Autobiography. Several refs but do any provide sound eveidence of notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:BIO as the subject of the article has success in a narrow area of expertise and very hard to distinguish as worthy of notice, especially in comparison to many of his peers. CrookedwithaK (talk) 10:19, 10 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) 19:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Tumenov[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - has not had one top tier fight. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He may become notable, but right now he has none of the top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not meet the criteria at WP:MMANOT nor the requirements for general notability. SQGibbon (talk) 18:33, 10 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) 22:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WFCA Plc[edit]

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

Clients are notable, company isn't. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:CORPDEPTH, while the company is mentioned in online trade publications, the mentions are all incidental. Other references are simply press releases or announcements of awards. I couldn't find any mention in regional or national news at all. I don't think it meets the criteria for WP:COMPANY. MikeMan67 (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:55, 9 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. The sources provided all appear to be problematic in establishing the notability of the subject per WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 04:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Sergeant, Wandsworth[edit]

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

No clear assertion of notability. Aside from a few reviews, the only mentions the pub gets in sources are on the owners (Young's) website, and their own book on their pubs ("Inn and around London" - currently called "Forever Young's"), and in the local paper for being a category winner in a non-notable pub award (one of several run by The Publican to help promote pubs). Research by myself and the article creator have turned up no further information. Fails WP:GNG as it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tal Brenev (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being over 200 years old makes this quite historic. Sources from such pre-internet days may not be easy to Google but this is no reason to delete. Per WP:ATD, the worst case would be merger into some higher level article such as Garratt Lane and so our editing policy applies. Andrew (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging was tried and reverted, which is why we are here. We have never used age by itself as a criteria for notability, given that in Europe, 200 years is not very old for a building. We tend to go by what reliable sources say. And other than a local paper, there are no independent reliable sources which speak significantly about this place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The guide to AFD lists Notability for People, Organisations, Music, but not either places or buildings.

The page refers to a place of entertainment that;

1) is over 250 years old

2) has an award for being the best community pub in Britain in 2012.

3) has an original example of a 19th Century Coach House.

4) Is an example of a small but popular "Local"

Any one of these reasons shows notability. Consequently the application should be rejected.

DonJay (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If 1) and 3) were true then it would most definitely be a listed building. It isn't. 2) may contribute to its notability, but doesn't establish it. 4) is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the official English Heritage list, it does not seem to be a listed building, not even Grade II (the lowest rating), which suggests it is not in fact anywhere near as old, historic or architecturally interesting as the article claims (since any building that was as described in the article most assuredly would be listed). It is therefore likely that, although an inn of this name may have stood on the site in the 18th century, the current building is not it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The facts in the article are reliably sourced, see below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I see are claims that it's the same pub as the older one with the same name. This is done quite a lot. Many pubs that claim great age are actually nowhere near as old as they say they are - great age is a marketing feature. Frankly, I am inclined to trust English Heritage's experts, who have not listed it, not even Grade II, let alone the higher grade it would probably be given if it was really this old, over any sources quoted in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd because the facts are not in dispute - no unsubstantiated age or features are being claimed here. The only question that's unresolved is the relationship between the apparently Victorian frontage and the known 1785 date of a pub on the site. As for listing, many English pubs are not listed even when they possibly have back rooms dating to the 18th century; the listings are generally for buildings that are visibly fine, whether Victorian or older, so we needn't place much faith in rhetoric about trusting experts, etc etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EH generally lists all buildings that have substantiated and reasonably substantial features (external or internal) built before 1840, so I'm afraid the above is simply not true. Either there isn't enough of the original remaining to list or the age claimed is not accurate. In either case, I'm seeing no notability based on the building itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason whatever to doubt the facts, so most likely the old building was partly or wholly replaced around 1870 as it appears from the frontage. The notability is for the pub, not only for the current building: it is of interest that a pub has stood on the site continuously since 1785. The coachway too may well be older than the current pub, as the documents imply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is either for the pub itself or for the building that houses it. There is little proof that the pub itself is notable, beyond a few unsubstantiated claims based on the statements of its owners, and the people who establish notability of historic buildings haven't done so in this case. If the coachway was historic enough to be notable then it would be listed, as I said! Therefore, it would appear that neither the establishment nor the building is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 10 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) 23:49, 26 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) This looks at first sight like a typical Victorian pub, but the existing pub may just have been re-fronted (so perhaps the back and upstairs are 18th century). The basic facts in the article come from the report by CAMRA of the 1785 licence held by John Nash, with the detail about Earl Spencer, as well as the remark that the coachhouse doors are still visible, so the basic facts are reliably sourced and I think notable.

2) The pub did become Best Community Pub of 2012, which is a claim to notability.

3) The John Young room upstairs has 'treasured memorabilia' of Young and his Wandsworth brewery; again, a claim to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source is a press release from the owners, Youngs. We already have that information on both the Youngs website and on their self-published book on their pubs (from which the article was written in the first place - I suspect the person originally writing the article didn't realise the book was not an independent source). In order to establish notability we need independent and reliable source to talk in depth about a topic. Anything from Youngs, who own the pub, is not considered independent per WP:PRIMARY, which is a policy, and was written to cover situations such as this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We may rely even on self sources for uncontroversial facts; it is not likely that Youngs would lie about the existence of their own memorabilia, which is in any case a readily verifiable claim. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if in-depth coverage in independent third-party sources can be found, then I would support keeping the article. I did have a look myself before nominating the article, but couldn't find anything significant or independent. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep)

The references were not a brewery publicity release, but rather a scholarly historic analysis of the pubs own by Youngs. consequently it is an in depth study .

Although the publisher was the brewer, the book may be considered as independant as there is no advantage given by its contents (as in a similar publication, "The Guiness Book of Record")

The award for best pub in the country, most certainly makes it notable, which was the cause of the discussion being raised.

The subject is an entertainment venue, with historic background and should not be ttreated as a public company.

DonJay (talk) 20:13, 10 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. --BDD (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Labour (Serbia)[edit]

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

Not notable "illegal" political party with no media coverage whatsoever and no sources except the official website. Alex^{discussion ★} 14:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a party from the early 1990s, which always moved in the peripheries of Serbian politics in last 20 years. PR is interesting for its position on the national question, one of few Serbian voices that went 180 degrees in opposition to the predominant line on Kosovo, see http://www.mltranslations.org/Yugoslavia/pr11.htm . PR is discussed in Party Politics in the Western Balkans, p. 27. [13] is an account from 1995. Another account on the party, [14]. --Soman (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soman Sources you've provided are not reliable, or at least they are strongly related to the entity. And this source is only a passing mention, that's not in accordance with the GN guideline. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First off, let me say what I always say: I favor the lowest possible barriers for inclusion of articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections without respect to size or ideology. This is material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Moreover, there is coverage out there, such as DISCUSSION in Party Politics in the Western Balkans, edited by Vera Stojarová and Peter Emerson and published by Routledge. Carrite (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite I'm must point out here that I don't agree with you. Wikipedia has to have political parties that exceed some kind of threshold of significance, so that only really important organisations are included to Wikipedia. Sources you've provided is not a discussion, but only a passing mention. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is news to me. Show me one single diff where I "openly advocate communism." Take your time. Then I will thank you for retracting this personal attack, which is what a nefarious form of ad hominem attack that we call "red baiting" in the United States. Carrite (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this wasn't a personal attack. Take a good look at your user page. What about the Communist Internationale photo yours there? I'm not from the United States, and people from place where I live don't find this as "ad hominem" attack. I don't see why would being a communist be a bad thing? Only if you find it as such. Anyway, I only intended to show that you may be some how related to the subject of the article. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are your choices: (1) you will provide a diff on OR OFF Wiki at which I "openly advocate Communism." Or (2) you will retract the red-baiting, ad hominem attack you made upon me above. Or (3) you will find yourself at Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents over this. Take as much time as you'd like to explore option 1 before exercising option 2 to avoid option 3. Carrite (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed my wording above. Is it OK for you now? I don't mind if you report me, and you have my approval if you do so. I have provided diffs for you in my reply. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a little better. Now it would be sort of like me saying that a nomination or an argument should be disregarded because the person making it "might be closely related to Balkan nationalism" or some such. It's still a completely bullshit way to discuss the topic of notability. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having lived through the period, in Serbia, I've never heard of them, and I can assure you there were hundreds of political parties with at least marginal media coverage in 1990s. This one has none, possibly due to the Great World Conspiracy, and a passing mention in a book about far left doth not constitute notability. They failed to leave any mark in the history, ergo they should rest in peace. Even the yogi flyers party fared better than them. [15]No such user (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not listed in the registry of political parties in Serbia, meaning it is either defunct or illegal. No evidence of past electoral participation since its inception. I don't see anything particularly encyclopedic here. Buttons (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being either defunct or illegal is no barrier to inclusion. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is a factor in determining notability. Is it legally active? No. Has it participated in any election? No. What notable contribution(s) has it made? None. Buttons (talk) 22:15, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being defunct or illegal is not an argument against notability. WP is an encyclopedia, and covers whatever was important. A party important in the past may have no current political significance, but it retains historical significance indefinitely. A party being illegal does not in the least impair notability--such parties can be as notable as any legal part, and sometimes more so. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, except this party has no historical significance past or present. None that anyone here for a keep has been able to prove anyway. Buttons (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some articles about PR. CATEGORY ARCHIVES: PARTY OF LABOUR (PARTIJA RADA)--Pacovdlak (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that Espresso Stalinist is not recognised as a reliable source. It's highly biased thought publisher. Alex^{discussion ★} 22:15, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Catholicism[edit]

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

Delete and redirect to Traditionalist Catholic. This doesn't seem to be anything other than a term that traditionalists use for all the other Catholics, so there is nothing interesting to say about them other than that they agree with what's described in Catholicism and don't agree with what's described in Traditionalist Catholic. Cal Engime (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cal Engime (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a pejorative term used by Traditionalist Catholics about their opponents, a "redirect to Traditionalist Catholic" is probably not a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - agree with statements made in nomination. Should just be deleted outright or merged into Traditionalist Catholic.Marauder40 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge This is a pejorative term, never likely to be accepted by those who are supposed to be Neo-Catholics, and (as the article does not say) entirely a term used in America, and by very few there I imagine. The article is extremely confusing, as are some of the sources I looked at, but the term might be worth a sentence or two somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 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 that the article was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G12. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 20:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse Effect Science Fiction[edit]

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

Self-published book with no indication of notability. Unable to find any reliable secondary sources. Kolbasz (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found 1 sentence[16] in a newspaper from Sierra Vista, AZ. That isn't enough to make it notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio from the book's Amazon.com profile. Tagged for G12. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 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) 15:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly Grip (Drag Queen)[edit]

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

No reliable sources found to verify the notability of this drag artist. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ww2censor (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable female impersonator. Snappy (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:21, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISupport[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. It also seems to share a name with an Apple product which made finding good matches difficult. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn on this one - the awards if substantiated seem reasonable, but like you I was unable to find anyone talking about iSupport, even though I find organizations that seem to be using it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been extensively edited by people at the company. If there were substantial coverage in reliable independent sources they would have added it. The nom and AFH's searches confirm this. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daren Nelson

As cited in the article iSupport Software was formerly known as GWI Software. The name was changed to iSupport Software in 2010. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/08/prweb4379124.htm
We hold a US trademark in good standing for iSupport ( http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:p59gwq.2.5 )
iSupport software has a LinkedIn page with over 300 followers http://www.linkedin.com/company/isupport-software?trk=top_nav_home
Press releases http://www.prweb.com/search.aspx?search-releases=isupport+software&hitsPerPage=20&x=0&y=0
Capterria user reviews of iSupport software http://www.capterra.com/help-desk-software/spotlight/152/iSupport/iSupport%20Software
Partnership with Bomgar http://www.bomgar.com/press/releases/help-desk-software-provider-isupport-partners-with-bomgar-to-add-secure-rem#.Ut9TvmTTky4
Local news paper http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/oct/19/more-companies-reach-for-the-clouds/
This page contains links back as far as 1997 documenting the history of the company as GWI Software.
iSupport Software has over 700 active customers and has been operating under the same ownership for almost 22 years. We are one of the oldest software companies in the WORLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daren nelson (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Darren. I should have linked to the appropriate notability guidelines. Please see WP:N, specifically WP:GNG, and WP:PRODUCT. While what you list is impressive, it does not satisfy the notability guidelines. The last one is more about the company than the product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i believe I have followed all appropriate guidelines and provided as many external verification links as possible. I notice that numerous competitors have pages with far less information. Reference virtually any company listed on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daren nelson (talk • contribs) 07:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to review the other entries there soon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that from what I can find it doesn't meet notability guidelines. It's true that some of the other items listed on the Comparison of issue tracking systems are also problematic such as Teamwork (software), while others are solid. In any case, the existence of other problematic articles doesn't justify this one here. A general cleanup through the list is a better idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've made a summary of the existing references on the talk page of the article. Only 1 of them helps, so it seems to fail notability guidelines. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous third party references have been added in the last 24 hours including reviews of the software done by users of the product. Daren nelson (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to hand it to Daren for trying, but we still have numerous sources that are unsuitable for establishing notability. We have lots of self-published case studies, you can't use those, a list-site in Capterra, and a few trivial mentions. For example the vmjusa.com article is only a couple of paragraphs. I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but if you haven't read WP:NOTE and WP:RS and WP:CORP yet, it should lay out very nicely what is needed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:05, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite efforts thus far, I don't think the subject meets WP:CORPDEPTH just yet. Happy to concede it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON but the proponents should spend time trying to generate WP:RS/WP:N compliant coverage for the company rather than trying to argue it out here when it isn't ready. A couple more good sources and we'd be there - shouldn't take too much effort. Stalwart111 13:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion article with virtually all substantive edits by a WP:SPA. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 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. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Riley (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey coach who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and in a google search I was unable to find any sources that met WP:GNG. Anything I found was either a primary source or routine coverage. DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Served as the Army Black Knights - a Division I NCAA hockey program - for almost twenty years. Found plenty of sources indicating notability: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 02:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hockeyben. Longtime NCAA coach (especially with the amount of years he served) should meet GNG - there are sources available. – Connormah (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with most other sports. But NCAA hockey is covered considerably less than the other major sports. And usually you never hear about the coaches and usually what sources exist fail WP:GEOSCOPE, in that they are local articles about a local coach, as most of the ones Hockeyben has linked to above do. He did, however, link a SI article though so it is possible he meets GNG. But there wasn't enough to assume he did. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hockeyben. An NCAA Division I head coach is an easy keep. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SI article plus major Boston newspapers, Riley surpasses GNG, reliable secondary sources exist in sufficient quantity to write a biographical article on him. Canada Hky (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources from his tenure as an NCAA DI coach, but also from his time as an AHL head coach with the Springfield Falcons. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:28, 9 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. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

23red[edit]

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

Suggest delete. fervent_spirit
Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's covered in great detail in the specialist press.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] But coverage in mainstream news media is just brief mentions.[34][35] You can't claim there are no reliable sources. The question is whether these go beyond routine coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:35, 28 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, Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the Guardian article "Jo Arden is head of strategy at 23red". It's all looking like press releases to me. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:56, 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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2014. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Mills III[edit]

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

Businessman and political candidate; does not appear notable. Previously PRODded, recently re-created. PamD 08:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a clear cut wp:POLITICIAN fail to me. Candidate rather than elected, no other claim to notability. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is a wp:POLITICIAN fail. Stewart Mills III clearly meets the criteria for both #2 and #3 of that category. Debellatio (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2014. A redirect is a customary and appropriate action for candidates for a position in a national legislature. Enos733 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That redirect is customary when they do not meet the criteria outlined in wp:POLITICIAN. However, Stewart Mills III clearly meets #2 & #3 of that category. I have since added to the article, including news coverage he received even before he was a candidate for office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debellatio (talk • contribs) 23:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure how the subject is a "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage," since he is not a local office-holder (WP:POLITICIAN point 2). As for point 3, this is the regular WP:GNG criteria. The media coverage I found about the subject is, in my opinion, run-of-the-mill routine campaign coverage (meeting WP:BLP1E). Enos733 (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:OUTCOMES and Enos733. WP:POLITICIAN #2 and # 3 apply to local officials (i.e., dogcatchers, town selectmen, library board trustees, a city treasurer, a school board president, and county judges) who would not otherwise be notable for holding a minor office, but become notable due to #2 -- some controversy (e.g, a sex scandal or racial desegregation) or # 3 -- running for a much higher office (governor, U.S. Senator). These criteria thus do not apply here. From what I can tell, he's never held any local office, and is like many hundreds of people every two years, just some dude running for Congress. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 11 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) 15:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William McLean (military officer)[edit]

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

Already tagged for notability, believe he fails Notability, Colonels are not generally notable under WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent notability. Not senior enough or decorated enough to meet WP:SOLDIER. No notable achievements beyond routine assignments for an officer of his rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, not a notable person, fails to meet WP:SOLDIER. - Ahunt (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Run of the mill, non-Flag officer. No major decorations. Not all officers are notable, sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Not an area I know much about, but how likely is it that someone who is responsible for 50,000 people is not notable? XOttawahitech (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it highly unlikely that a colonel is actually responsible for 50,000 people, despite the claims in the article. If he was, he'd have a much higher rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a pretty wild claim since the strength of the whole Canadian Armed Forces is only 68,000 all ranks. You will notice that claim in the article is not referenced. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 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 delete. feel free to WP:USERFY slakr^\ talk / 07:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paani[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. It's been rumored, and pushed back and debated and "coming soon" and all ready to start since 2003. It's now 2014 and all we have from the distributor company itself is that it will be shot and go to floor in mid-2014.[36]. The article was formerly converted to a redirect by @Vivvt: 1 May 2013 per WP:NFF (note: only admins can actually see the actual log entry for this now-deleted action). That redirect was then deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 24#Paani as better to have as a redlink for when an article can be written. I propose that it is a poster-child for why WP:NFF requires actual filming to have begun, rather than rumor and self-promotional chatter from those involved in the supposed project. DMacks (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per rationale provided by OP. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Incubate - Sadly, the article is extremely well sourced but then again verifiability does not guarantee inclusion as it fails WP:NFF. The film though will get notable in the future so I suggest that an User-space copy should be kept. Soham 16:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would like to stress that a user space copy be kept so that it can be restored later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitreloaded (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
incubate should the "mid-2014" prophecy be more accurate than previous oracle proclamations, it can be re-hatched.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for pretty well work done so far. It would then be easier to use it once filming starts. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per Dharmadhyaksha.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate : I have worked a lot for writing the pre-production of the film with other sections. Searched hard for cached references too. Apart from that the filming is to commence from Summer 2014. Till then the Wikipedia page of the same may be kept under a re-direct. Arjann (talk) 17:08, 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.

@Slakr:. please incubate this article. Delete is not the best closure. Tito☸Dutta 08:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impedance control[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Only source for the article is the single paper which appears to have invented the theory/approach. My search of the web turned up no other instances of the concept except in that original paper, and a single novel paper does not warrant a Wikipedia article absent some broader impact on the field or society. Wieno (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator - it looks like it may have a bigger impact than I thought and it seems like the article creator is willing to improve it. Wieno (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a PhD student in robotics and I also study controls. Impedance control is a vital method for dynamic manipulation and has established control theory. That said, I have been frustrated with the lack of open source documentation on it so I made this article as a start in the right direction. I'd expand it except I'm not (yet) an expert in this area. There are plenty of advanced articles on Google Scholar discussing it: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=impedance+control&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.82.13.119 (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a good article to cite: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1087854&tag=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.82.13.119 (talk) 08:22, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comindware Tracker[edit]

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

Please delete this spammy and non-neutral article for two reasons.

Reason 1:

This article was created through undisclosed paid editing by Alexandra Goncharik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam).

If you'd like proof, please see <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.freelancer.is/projects/Article-Rewriting-Article-Submission/Replace-existing-WIKIPEDIA-page-maintain.html>. On this cached page from a freelancer marketplace, Alexandra has written, in part:

"I have considerable experience in editing and submitting Wikipedia articles (5+ years), following its policies and guidelines. My proven track record consists of about 700 contributions, including creation of new articles about people, companies, their services and products. I really love doing this. My contributions log: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexandra_Goncharik (I can send you some examples of my articles in Wikipedia, if needed)."

Undisclosed paid editing is a cheap and sleazy thing to do. See also the two short cautionary tales at User:Durova/The dark side. Personally, I feel that even disclosed paid editing makes Wikipedia a worse place for the world to get information. Still, if you feel that you must do paid editing, then I request that you please not write new articles. Instead, get Wikipedians to write new articles for you. See WP:BPCOI.

Dear admins: Please delete the Comindware Tracker article per WP:NOPAY and WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

Reason 2:

ISTM that this product fails WP:AUD, which says that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Well, Top Design Magazine, for one, is almost surely a magazine "of limited interest and circulation".

WP:42 says you need at least several mainstream sources, such as major newspapers. If you do find several such sources, please paste links below.

Dear admins: Please delete the article per WP:AUD.

Thanks for stopping by! —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had concerns about the article from its creation. I cannot find better sources and all but one source in the article fail standards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a creator and a main contributer to this article I admit that I definitely had a conflict of interest while editing this page. However I was not payed for it (I created the article at the request of my former colleague a couple of years ago having a poor understanding of the principles of Wikipedia at that time). I should not have to agree to this proposal, and I regret it. I agree that this article has multiple issues and is written as promotional one. So I don't contest this nomination. —Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 12:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the article being created by an editor with a conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, a reason for deletion. You will note that pages talking about COI state that editors with conflicts are discouraged from editing- they are not formally prohibited. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But, IIRC, promotional articles are forbidden per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing that looks like a high-quality independent source in the references. Makeuseof probably comes closest, but it's still pretty bloggish and their article is written in a way that makes it look more like an advertorial; no mention of any competing products in it for example, and contains language like "Fortunately for all managers and team leaders, there is a wonderful issue tracking solution available called Comindware Tracker." The coverage on Project-Management.com or GetApp.com have the same issues. The former uses language like "modern state-of-the-art", "highly dynamic" etc., while the latter in two looong "reviews" full of superlatives (like "automated processes management as its most unique feature") hasn't managed to find a single thing he didn't like about the product or mention any other product that might do something better (pretty odd for a reviewer who claims he "love[s] working with processes"). [My payoff for wasting my time reading all that is that I'll never go to GetApp.com to read any review ever--this was my first and last visit to their site.] Also, I didn't find any mentions of Comindware Tracker in Google Books. Overall, I don't think this product/company satisfies WP:PRODUCT/WP:CORP. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:48, 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 merge to Black Twitter. slakr^\ talk / 07:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen[edit]

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

I'm doubtful that a single hashtag, even if mentioned in multiple sources, deserves a separate Wikipedia article. Note that most of the sources stem from the period right around August 2013, when Ms. Kendall coined this hashtag. Compare WP:BLP1E. I'm looking forward to hearing other opinions on this. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups related deletion discussions. --Ronja (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article may be unusual, but the subject appears reasonable notable and cited. I say keep because there are few other places such knowledge would be recorded other than on Wikipedia. --gilgongo (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three of the seven references are from December 31st or later. A search using Google, after clicking "news", yields 18 news stories dating from December through January. Further, it's still trending six months later. This is an ongoing conversation, not a single event.ErykahHuggins (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ changed vote, see below It would be pretty embarrassing to delete this article exactly when the discussion about #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen also outside Twitter appears to have been reactivated. Michelle Goldberg's 4-page article Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars, which was published in The Nation on 29th January 2014, started this round of discussion and it has already received tens of off-Twitter responses, in addition to reblogs and mentions. See e.g. Huffington Post 29th January Why The Problem Of Online Toxicity Is Not The Same Thing As White Feminists vs. Non-White Feminists or Wire, also 29th January The Incomplete Guide to Feminist Infighting. --Ronja (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gilgongo's rationale for keeping is the best delete rational I've heard in a long time: "I say keep because there are few other places such knowledge would be recorded other than on Wikipedia." This is a hashtag, or more generously, a small online issue that's reported on by some blogs and I guess an article out of The Nation. This is like running headfirst into the bar we set for notability. That it's mentioned in "18 news stories" is a strong indication of how this fails the most basic of our notability criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjams, respectfully I think you may have misunderstood me. Eighteen was the number of stories in Google search on that particular day. There have probably been hundreds of news stories, not to mention countless blog entries. A search within huffingtonpost.com alone yields 150 hits. A search of jezebel.com yields 874, and feministe.us 2,320.ErykahHuggins (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did. All those "news" hits still fail our GNG That your best reference is more huffingtonpost stories only reinforces my point. Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. Even if the hashtag is mentioned in several articles, I don't think it has lasting notable in itself. It relates to a general debate about race and feminism; and to the degreee some part of the discussion started by the tag has lasting, notable effect, it can be included in relevant articles: feminism; black feminism or others. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding Merge as an alternative vote, since there now are several votes and suggestions for merge, and I am fine with that; as also indicated in my first vote above. Iselilja (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons that ErykahHuggins and Ronja already articulated. This is an ongoing event with news articles published mere days ago. WP:BLP1E is about people, not sure it's relevant here. I see 33 articles in Google News now. There are a significant number of independent and reliable sources covering the hashtag. Phette23 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Black Twitter for going against WP:BLP1E, which bars "mono-notable" articles like this from being created. As Iselilja says, this subject doesn't appear to have legs. The fact that it's still trending on Twitter is irrelevant, as are the number of blog posts, since both sources generally fall afoul of WP:SPS.Eladynnus (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Phette23 has suggested, doesn't WP:BLP1E only apply to "biographies of living persons"?ErykahHuggins (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it cited in news events such as spree killings and an article about the flying penis prank pulled on president Putin several years ago. The text of the policy talks about "events" as well as individuals, so the policy covers more than just people. Eladynnus (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS may also be applicable. All of the citations in the article come from a two day period (January 27-29). Eladynnus (talk) 14:18, 3 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) 01:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's a lot of reliable sources there for something up for AfD. And wp:BLP1E is, of course, irrelevant because it doesn't refer to a living person. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete It's one event within a larger issue about which little can be said. It should probably be a section of an article on intersectionality or Black feminism or Black twitter. Not certain which to propose but there's not enough noteworthy about it for it to be its own article. SPACKlick (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Black Twitter, it doesn't appear to be notable on its own yet. No need for a separate article at this time. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This debate has been going on since at least the 1960's according to Feminism#Civil rights movement and anti-racism. This means that this hashtag is a minor issue which could be or should be part a much better article. There is an article, Black feminism which seems to be a valid target. Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (change of vote) The information in this article is worth saving and augmenting, but a separate article is not necessary. The most logical merge target IMO would be Black Twitter. --Ronja (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: I think a merge and redirect to Black Twitter would be a good solution. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Black Twitter has a perfect place for a merge with this paragraph

Manjoo cited Brendan Meeder of Carnegie Mellon University, who argued that the high level of reciprocity between the hundreds of users who initiate hashtags (or "blacktags") leads to a high-density, influential network[9] (one notable example being Mikki Kendall's #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen ).

SPACKlick (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Black Twitter. Alternatively, weak keep and re-assess notability later, perhaps in a second AfD nomination. There are lots of sources, but none establishes notability "beyond a relatively short news cycle", which at present is impossible. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:31, 9 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) 15:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Dogs Lie (2005 film)[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources; IMDB doesn't count. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a review in Dread Central[37] and announcement/casting reported on MTV website[38] and recycled on other sites[39]. But I'm not sure that's enough to meet WP:NFILMS. However be aware that Rotten Tomatoes[40] seems to confuse this (directed by Stuart Lessner) with the Bobcat Goldthwait film Sleeping Dogs Lie (2006 film) so don't rely on the reviews listed there. This film does have notable stars, including the great Edward Asner, so it would be good to have info on it somewhere on Wikipedia. Possibly it could be merged to article on star Brad Wilk? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 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) 20:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a newspaper article about the film, though admittedly a local newspaper doesn't do a whole lot to establish notability. Still, we've got enough coverage to at least make a fair argument now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 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, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pronovost[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Some local media attention has been gained, but the actual effects of Pronovost, Powerband, and its parent company are questionable. I encourage you to simply visit Powerband's website at powerbandinternet.com and tell me what you think. Also, visit crunchbase.com/company/pronovost-technologies Whittledaughn (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If he is not already notable, he is close to it. He got quite a bit of local coverage due to his White House gig, and his company has received attention in the techie press. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 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) 20:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He seems just above the horizon in terms of notability for an entrepreneur. That his company haven't impacted anyone other than himself appears not to be a criterion for deletion. --gilgongo (talk) 12:26, 28 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, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets minimal notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 00:47, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sang-Soo[edit]

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

Unsourced biography about an MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a shame that people put so much effort into articles that so clearly fail criteria for inclusion, i.e. Wikipedia:Notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the article was created in 2009 which I think is before the inclusion criteria were formalized - its just been hiding.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 12:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ajin (manga)[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The page obviously needs work but I managed to find a couple of things that might help. Being a comparatively recent work by an newer author doesn't help it's case but there may be some more out there. A quick search on google will just turn up 30 scanlation sites, but I found two useful pages by using some common sense. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note This manga's original title is 亜人. See also ja:亜人 (漫画). ひなどり(Hinadori) 13:52, 28 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, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is pretty new and has since seen minor improvements since it was created. I see no WP:RUSH here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep from me as well but for different reasons. The problem with this sort of article is that it covers a subject still fairly new for this sort of media and isn't officially available in English which limits sourcing oppurtunities. It's doing decent sales figures though so there is a good chance it will stick around. The two items I added towards notability are both from the same english language web site, however they are simply english news items using notable Japanese language sources (Natalie is used by Yahoo Japan and others for news stories, Oricon is an official national chart company) so I don't see that being a cause for concern. I do think it's enough to keep the article, but I can see why some might find it less than convincing.Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would normally be premature to create an article on a series that only has two volumes, since it's not had the time to establish a solid fanbase much less get many English sources. In this case, however, it has two volumes and a nomination for the Manga Taisho award, which strongly suggests that it is a worthy topic for a stub: not only does that put us up to the standard minimal sourcing requirements, but even in the event of an early cancellation, a nominated series getting the axe will be news. --erachima talk 08:36, 10 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) Ethically^Yours! 12:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reichskriminalpolizeiamt[edit]

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

We already have this article at Kriminalpolizei. Hoops gza (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with this article. It expands on the summary content at Kriminalpolizei, and adds some further details. So keep. In the unlikely case that this is deleted, don't forget to redirect to Kriminalpolizei#Nazi Germany. —Kusma (t·c) 09:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. It is really redundant and the early history can be merged into the Kriminalpolizei article. The Reichskriminalpolizeiamt was absorbed and became known as Amt V (Department V), the Criminal Police in the RSHA. The article is not needed. It is not the same as the Gestapo-apples and oranges. The Kriminalpolizei article should cover its whole history in one place. Kierzek (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No argument for deletion has been brought forward so far. Kriminalpolizei is a more general article on plain-cloths police in Germany (also a bit lopsided at the moment regarding the Nazi era). Whereas nobody would seriously argue to merge Gestapo into the RSHA article, although it shared the fate of the RKPA. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:05, 30 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) 01:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Separate, defined organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. No valid rationale for deletion offered. AfD isn't for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 16:49, 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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 20:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Lough cheese[edit]

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

Reason Jlonergan (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" is little more than blatant advertising for this small company. It reads like a blurb from some promotional material. It is a small local business near where I come from but it really does not warrant a Wiki article is it really isn't noteworthy outside of the locality.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the article back so that editors actually have a chance to address some of the comments made above. Seriously, 30 minutes between listing and deletion???? Nobody notified? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article fully meets the criteria of WP:N. It has significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources such as a newspaper, and a book on Irish cheese. Can the original proposer or another editor please point out the parts that are considered "blatent advertising" and "blurb for some promotional material"? All the content has been sourced and checked, but if there's stuff that is considered non-encyclopedic, that content can be addressed I'm sure. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per [41] and [42] pp. 68–69. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT.--Laun chba ller 21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view WP:TNT as applicable for this article, because it certainly isn't "hopelessly irreparable" as per WP:TNT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also puzzled over why a self-described "staunch inclusionist" would argue that the article is so bad, it falls under WP:TNT. Care to explain a little more? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 28 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, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant looking award and a couple of sources. Passes wp:N (although not by much) and I strongly disagree with wp:TNT Neonchameleon (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not dispute that the article is well written and put together and that it has references for the claims made. However, that in itself does not necessarily mean the article is justified. I do dispute the subject's noteworthiness as, as I already said, it is a fairly small "mom & pop" business of little note outside of the local area in which it is based. An article cannot be justified simply on the basis of it being well written and referenced - it has to be about something notable - small, local enterprises are generally not notable. If we allowed this article because sources are cited, then should we be allowing articles on every back street tyre shop and convenience store simply because they are mentioned in a few websites or newspapers? I think not. I feel the article's language is promoting the business by discussing the products it makes and pointing out that they won an award.User:Jlonergan 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for notability is pretty well documented in WP:N. Just because it's a tiny operation doesn't exclude it. It's a very well known operation producing high quality products. Because of this, they got noticed. And written about. That's what makes it notable (as per policy). And any small, local enterprises that are similarly written about in reliable sources for the products they produce will also pass WP:GNG. If you find me a Mom and Pop tyre shop that gets the same amount of coverage as these guys, I'll write the article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:57, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The T.S. Eliot Appreciation Society[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG, there are a few Dutch Gnews sources which have them on the bill for "battle of the bands" style club gigs, but not significant coverage. Maybe at best a case of WP:TOOSOON, as the single album release to date also falls short of WP:NBAND. Roberticus (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's very difficult to judge how much coverage there is while the Google News Archive is down. GNews has a few hits, which suggests that there may be older coverage that we don't see there. --Michig (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, perhaps this is why I found so little. Is the Archive down long term? They were formed pretty recently per their (his) website, so I'm not sure how much more we'll find... Roberticus (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources I found through Google were primarily blogs or trivial coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 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, Stifle (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep album review & feature in OOR, Nov. 2013, concert review @ 3VOOR12 [43]. Written In Music [44] also looks an RS. [45] 78.19.106.134 (talk) 19:09, 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) 01:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reviews by major websites or newspapers; as far as I can tell, no touring outside Benelux. Please correct me if I am wrong. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC) No, busking and house concerts do not count for notability. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 11 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. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aurthohin[edit]

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

Band article that has lacked published, reliable sources to prove notability for a couple of years.

I am also nominating the following two recently created, unsourced articles on two of the band's album releases that both fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 22:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - one of the most popular bands in Bangladesh, enough reliable sources for the band as well as the albums - [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Zayeem. Aurthohin is one of the preeminent rock metal bands of Bangladesh.--31.205.56.85 (talk) 12:29, 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, Stifle (talk) 09:15, 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) 01:18, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Audinwood[edit]

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

MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 16:15, 11 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noddfa, Treorchy[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. ColonelHenry (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a building that has some significance in the history of the south Wales valleys. Cannot understand argument for deletion!Macs15 (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm finding evidence that Macs15 is right: it played a significant role in its sphere. I've added another source that had information on the building, and the Treorchy choir's history page has a photograph that may be old enough that we can use it. I've also added its full name: Noddfa Welsh Baptist Chapel, Treorchy / Capel Bedyddwyr Cymraeg Noddfa; that may help in finding additional sources. We shouldn't let the loss of Google News Archives make us too quick to infer lack of notability, and I'm thinking that fire must still be recorded somewhere in the media. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been both a notable chapel and a large and impressive piece of architecture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 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) 01:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though would like to see sourcing for the superlatives "one of the largest and grandest" - when unsourced, this kind of language becomes a target for AfD since it looks like an attempt to make something look notable that might not actually be. -- GreenC 03:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being covered in detail in sources such as Valleys of Song: Music and Society in Wales 1840-1914, the topic passes the general notability guide. Andrew (talk) 19:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cooks the Bakery[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Notable. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per:

Birmingham Mail
Birmingham Post (Scroll down on page for article)
British Baker magazine
Bromsgrove Advertiser
British Baker magazine
Coventry Telegraph
British Baker magazine
The Grocer
Express and Star
Romsey Advertiser
Birmingham Post
The Times (subscription required)
Computer Weekly

– In the event you haven't already done so, please consider performing source searching suggested at Section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:58, 28 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) 01:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. A major UK chain with 100+ outlets at one time and plenty of sources. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH., --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:43, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hominids of the Ringworld[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of the Ringworld series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 21 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) 00:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thesis sort of article is only justified when the underlying works are famous. These group of novels certainly are. It might even be aceptable to consider individual articles for some of them, but there should be no object forthis sort of modest combination article. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 28 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) 01:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Fails WP:LISTN. The fact that the novels are famous does not make everything associated with them inherently notable. The child articles still must establish notability beyond that of their parent article. Wikia is the place to document intricate fictional worlds, their histories, and their fantastical races. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Danel[edit]

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

I am a little unfamiliar with our standards for musicians, however I note that the only sources on the page are broken links, directory sources, and random pages that are not reliable sources. This source is the only one that looks ok.

Either he is not notable, or he is notable but the current article is almost exclusively promotion and original research. In either case a deletion seems appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the standards aren't difficult to grasp. Sell a bunch of records, or release a couple of records on a big label, get some attention from the press, and there you are. It's hard to believe that this promopiece, full of discographies and whatnot, is so poorly sourced, and that there are so few reliable sources available for this guy (yours is valid but doesn't have much to say). The French article is just as bad (it's even tagged as promotional, first time I've seen that in a French article), and the Dutch is probably worse (I checked to see if they had some references to offer). So I'm hesitant to say delete right now; I'm curious to see if this AfD brings up something new. And perhaps someone will be excited enough to seriously prune this resume/article. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ! There's been some talk on the French article. I added some sources here and there on it at the time. But some guys seemed to be quite agressive about the article or the artist himself. It seemed to me it was quite abusive sometimes. The promotionnal tag is quite recent, and appeared without any major change if I remember. Internet is quite full of references about the guy (records, gold discs, videos, duets with guitar greats etc.). There are videos of tv advertising, gold discs ceremonies at sony records, press articles, etc. In my opinion, the article has to be modified, but certainly not deleted. I suggest I can do that and you see what you think about it :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.150.158 (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Changes are done, and new sources have been added. It is certainly three times shorter now, which is a good thing. I think it is now aaceptable :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.150.158 (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs cleaning and inclusion of material from the French article, but a number one album in his nation's charts and gold status meets WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 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) 23:53, 26 January 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 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:31, 28 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) 01:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Walter Görlitz. May also benefit from being tagged with {{expand language}}. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:25, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Eddie Garcia[edit]

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

Totally unsourced fancruft-article listing awards and nominations allegedly received by a Filipino celebrity. If there had been at least some sources/references in the article it could have been merged with the main article, Eddie Garcia, but as it is, with not a single source/reference for anything, there's nothing to merge. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can. It. Be. VERIFIED? That's the only relevant question here, not whether there are presently sources in the article. Is the information verifiable? And given that nearly all of the listed awards are notable and/or from notable institutions, it is not at all plausible that reliable sources for their awards and nominations is not available. So this and the two identical AFD nominations by the same editor strike me as a poorly thought out failure to follow WP:BEFORE, and contrary to policy, particularly at WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and (for the benefit of the incorrect !vote above) WP:BLPDELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 21 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) 00:33, 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) 01:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eddie Garcia - There simply isn't enough material to warrant a separate article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're merging all of this, it'll be a lot of material that will added there. –H T D 08:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)r[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trance Allstars[edit]

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

A multitude of sins. "combined talents" - unencyclopedic. Articles are not lists unless they expressly state it in the title. Also totally unreferenced. Laun chba ller 13:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my delete !vote per comments below about the band charting. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My reading of WP:MUSIC is Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart which should be satisfied with 4 charthits in Germany and Austria as well as 3 charthits in Switzerland. Agathoclea (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you put its chart successes into the article.--Laun chba ller 11:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the refs. I can't convert the templates used on dewiki. Agathoclea (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just knock up a simple discography like the one at Christian Scharnweber.--Laun chba ller 13:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GOODCHARTS states that http://www.austriancharts.at/search.asp?search=Trance+Allstars&cat=s are good and so they meet WP:MUSICBIO, but the article needs to be cleaned-up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:55, 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) 00:31, 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) 01:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly still needs some maintenance, but the most pressing problems have been resolved. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:18, 10 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPAMfighter[edit]

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

Minor reviews do not provide enough to make this a notable software company or product. Indeed, it's impossible to tell if this "article" is about the company ... or the product. Only references are to its own, and external links are not sufficient to denote notability ES &L 12:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are sufficient reviews of the product over a considerable amount of time. The PCmag review runs to 5000 words about this single product so cannot be considered minor. Plenty of other reviews including some which place it best in class satisfy all the requirements of WP:N.--Salix alba (talk): 13:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the reason why this should be kept is it seems to be in the top three products in the spam filtering category. A google search for "spam filter" puts in the first page, Cnet's list of spam-filter software has it as the second most popular [51] (the assassin and phone-number lookup entries are sponsored/not relevant). --Salix alba (talk): 15:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Software of unclear notability, deleted in afd in 2011. Apart from the PCmag ref in the article, all of the other reviews I found were from blogs or download sites, and almost all a paragraph in length or less. the crunchbase overview is basically a business listing and does not establish notability. toptenreviews, the other review referenced in the article, has been discussed several times at Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where the consensus has been that it is not RS. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional, and primary contributors to the article have been other SPAs, suggesting a possible ongoing promotional strategy.Dialectric (talk) 12:28, 21 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) 00:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that a Crunchbase company profile doesn't impart notability for GNG/CORPDEPTH purposes. See related discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive.is and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verasafe. The PC Magazine review does impart notability for GNG purpose. I'm still on the fence about the overall verdict for this product. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The free, consumer product is also mentioned in a dozen books [52] (usually with a brief blurb) which indicates that the PC Mag review wasn't a fluke, i.e. there is some sustained interest from independent sources in the product. A shorter review exist in PC World [53], and a review of the (non-free) server-side product can be found in Techrepublic [54]. There's also a review of the Apple version in a more obscure publication [55]. The TopTenReviews review has a video version [56] (on "AOL On"). These last two sources I've mentioned are of rather low quality though (close to being just adverts). Since this is a Danish company, information focused on the company should be sought in Danish sources too. Computerworld.dk has a couple of articles here and here focused on the company rather than its products. dk:Business.dk (a site of Berlingske) also has an article [57] (of 2005 vintage) about the company and so does Ekstrabladet (2011) [58] (though what that latter article says mostly is that SPAMfighter's author has made it to the millionaire's club and has relocated to the US...); probably more reliable sources exist in Danish because a google search for https://www.google.com/search?q=SPAMfighter+site:dk returns plenty of hits, but I'm not exactly familiar with the Danish press to immediately tell apart the RS ones from the rest. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:15, 29 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) 01:00, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

African American Office Holders in Colorado[edit]

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

This is not the sort of article that should be on Wikipedia IMO. Race should not be relevant - this article draws attention to race and somehow marks these people out as being different. I just don't see how it's relevant. (I accept that in years gone by, it was a big deal. But it shouldn't be like that now.) Would we accept a corresponding White office holders in Colorado article? No - I think that would be seen as racist. This is no different. Bazonka (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you'd have a better argument if you argued that it doesn't satisfy WP:LISTN, as your current rationale amounts to "I don't like it". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment... I agree that it doesn't satisfy WP:LISTN. Bazonka (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not due to WP:LISTN but due to total absence of RS ... I have no idea if all these names are just made-up and no desire to do the searching necessary to find out; however, if it were better sourced I would probably have voted Weak Keep as this might be useful content. I agree we should NOT have "White Office Holders in Colorado," however, I would be okay with "White Office Holders in Zimbabwe." On the same count I'd otherwise be okay with "African American Office Holders in Colorado." But it would need so much work that there's no point in keeping this. BlueSalix (talk) 21:13, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, consists of WP:SYNTHESIS. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis and original research. If secondary sources had mentioned the number of African American office holders in Colorado as something important about the state or its history that could be mentioned in relevant articles. But what's done here is just present us with a list of the intersection of three qualities: African American, office holder, and Colorado. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:44, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom Series[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published series by non-notable author. Orange Mike | Talk 08:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's true the first four books were self-published. They were so successful (in the top ten best-sellers list, according to the Christian Booksellers Association for Christian Youth Literature for the month of December 2008) that Black was signed to Multnomah Publishing in 2008.Source: Williston Herald and Grand Forks Herald. Even though sourcing is mostly local. There is national sourcing such as Focus on the Family and The Old Schoolhouse Magazine. -- GreenC 18:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - so they appeared on a specialized minority bestseller list for a single month; and have been reviewed in a couple of publications, one not known for literary reviews and the other highly obscure. Still no case here for actual notability under WP:BOOK. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  - I disagree. Christian books are their own genre, they are not "minorities", we don't discriminate, the sources are appropriate for the subject matter. -- GreenC 16:09, 26 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) 00:30, 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) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not familiar with this series, but looking at the sources, I agree that that sources are appropriate for the subject and seem to pass WP:Source and WP:BKCRIT. Additional reliable sources could be added without much difficulty. I have some familiarity with the publishing industry and this series appears to have far better sales, reviews, and press than most self-published works (at least from what a google search can reveal). The Christian book genre is not a "minority" genre. Edit Ferret (talk) 19:44, 11 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, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Hohenstein[edit]

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

Local meteorologist. No substantial non local coverage; DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorologist has worked across the US and has some world notoriety Weathershow ( talk ) 03:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 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) 00:29, 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) 00:59, 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan–Brazil relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. this is trying to make notable relations about a relation with a tiny Asian country. no embassies and Bhutan doesn't even bother allocating a non resident ambassador to Brazil. the common memberships prove nothing about actual relations. the level of trade is very low, even the article admits "In 2011, Bhutan ranked 236th among Brazil's trade partners, having a 0,00% participation in Brazilian foreign trade". the fact that you have to pass through a third country to fly to Bhutan adds zero to relations. the claim that Brazil is interested in Bhutan's happiness index seems more like the opinion of one person and not the Government [59]. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how this violates WP:GNG. It has a significant amount of independent and reliable sources to back it up. Just because it's not a strong relationship doesn't mean it's not worthy of being described. WP:NOTPAPER. Pikolas (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

almost all of the sources do not deal with actual relations in depth. Relations do exist but they are minor not notable. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re WP:NOTPAPER : "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". LibStar (talk) 00:37, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I agree that the article is unlikely to become much bigger than it already is, and that it hardly asserts the subject's relevance, it is indeed sourced, though that part could be improved with more independent sources that actually cover the subject, and not only mention it. I know it's strange to have an article saying "these countries have no significant relations, no embassies, and almost no trades", but, well, that's still information. If I had come across this article, I wouldn't even mind proposing its deletion. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although I agree this is near to farcical, the nom must surely be aware that the measure of whether an article can be sustained on a subject has nothing to do with whether it is important, thriving, indepth or large, but whether it is reliably sourced. I see that it meets the requirements of the GNG. Done deal. Ravenswing 23:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the bare existence of relations is not the same as notable relations. you even admit relations are farcical. the article is based on a series of factoids. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete I normally !vote to keep these articles but this time I think it is indeed too minor. (I advised the contributor yestersday that they were pushing things a little beyond what would be supported.) TheGNG needs to be used with common sense, both for keeping and for deleting. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 28 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) 00:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Brazil–India relations. Not a significant independent relationship, but merely an add-on to Brazil–India relations. India remains influential over Bhutan's foreign policy, defence and commerce. Bhutan has had no ambassador to Brazil. Brazil's ambassador to Bhutan is in his day job Brazil's ambassador to India. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with such a merge as it is POV. Same way that Australia is influential over Nauru, Papua New Guinea, does not mean bilaterals of these small nations get redirected to larger nations. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DGG. By all normal measures of bilateral relations, this fails - de minimus trade, no state visits, etc. - yet it passes WP:GNG on the basis of significant coverage in reliable sources. Easily fits into the category of WP:ODD. This is right at the edge of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 11 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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BAYADA Home Health Care[edit]

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

International company with hardly any significant coverage except for local newspapers. The businessweek.com ref seems to carry the most weight, but that is merely a description of the company, no coverage. Note that this article seems to be the result of paid editing, not necessarily that it is deemed notable and needs an article. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 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) 00:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the references, they appear to be a major company in the field. Realistically, that's the best criterion, since we could interpret hte sources as meeting or not meeting the subtantiality requirements of the GNG depending on what conclusion we thought sensible. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. this company is based in Philadelphia yet its major newspaper only yields 2 small hits on this company. [60]. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 29 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) 00:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bayada is a very large Home Health Care company and has very deep ties that started in the PA/NJ area. The references are solid and factual based on what I know about the company and I feel that people can get value from this article and vote to keep it. abiondo ( talk ) 10:27, 04 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— abiondo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:IKNOWIT not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size, scope and reliable and verifiable sources about the company satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient coverage to build a well-referenced article. Clearly sufficient for WP:GNG Pichpich (talk) 00:42, 14 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) 15:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MAKE Motorsports[edit]

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

Prod was disputed; article has little content, with no indication whatsoever of how it meets WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

waiting for improvements prior to saying keep or delete I'm aware of this subject, it is clearly notable and worthy but the article needs vast improvements for inclusion. A worthy subject to create an article about. A couple of sources would help DIZwikwiki (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of many useless redirects/articles created by a spamtroll days ago. No need to have this. --D-Day (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no claim of notability, no sign of mention in secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 05:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this team is indeed notable and the page could easily be improved, this is a case where it would be best to blow it up and start over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 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. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human Givens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Okay, I've spent some time looking on the 'net. It is four years since the last AfD and looking online I am still seeing only a mass of primary sources...and some occasional comments and single case studies and/or mentions here or there...and nothing systematic in any secondary Review Article at all. Maybe I am missing something...? I suspect not but maybe some proponents can come up with some Review Articles discussing (or even mentioning) it. I'd probably have let it slide, but then when I read this and this I start to wonder about this...and wonder whether the page's existence actually obfuscates more than clarifies and whether it may be better relegated to a mention on the cognitive behavioural therapy page or biopsychosocial model or something...or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially delete-- very reminiscent of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which certainly is notable. Could only find one use of the term "human givens" on PubMed: Andrews, W (2011 Dec). "Piloting a practice research network: a 12-month evaluation of the Human Givens approach in primary care at a general medical practice". Psychology and psychotherapy. 84 (4): 389–405. PMID 22903882. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). This is a primary source, already used in the article. This suggests that none of the other sources in the article are peer review publications (?), however textbooks would also be ok...but they need to be independent. Agree with the analysis that none of the sources currently in the article meet WP:MEDRS... Lesion (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said last time, seems to be unimportant.I consider it diagnostic that all the books listed are self-published. I notice that many individual therapists' variant versions of therapy have articles on WP, and the distinctions can seem very small. (this is of course not a criticism of their therapies as such, but rather of their practice in giving them individual branding.) The distinction for notability is when other people not connected with the school of thought publish about them. Given the publication practices in the field, I think we'd want substantial coverage in a major book from a recognized publisher, or considerable discussion in multiple articles in first-rate journals. It is quite possible that other articles of this nature have problems also, but we're not considering them now. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 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.