Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 February	5 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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. JohnCD (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cai Carney Media[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High school organisation, established 2014, no third party sources. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wish this could be speedied. entirely not notable per WP:GNG, especially guidelines for orgs.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with ColonelHenry. There should be a speedy delete category for this. Obviously fails WP:ORG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think that this would fall fairly well within the guidelines for a speedy deletion under WP:A7 (a nn organization) and WP:G11 (promotion), as this is about a small school group and some of the words are rather WP:PEACOCK in tone. A school club/group isn't the same as a business, true, but it's still an organization within a larger organization. A search brings up nothing that would show notability for the group. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of populated places in Turkey[edit]

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

It is useless and without ant information or additional texts. KazekageTR (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion rationale has been presented. You say it is useless without additional info, so per WP:BEFORE (and WP:SOFIXIT), "1If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.". This is part of a bigger series of articles too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No information ? I disagree. It is informative and it lists the populated places in Turkey. No text ? Well this is a list and a list usually doesn't have a text save for a small lede. You can see thousands of list articles in WP.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such lists are perfectly acceptable and constructive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although no harm in perhaps putting it into two or three columns. Ithinkicahn (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP. This expandable list is complementary to Category:Populated places in Turkey and the subcategories therein. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:43, 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 soft redirect (non-admin) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drins[edit]

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

One single unsourced sentence. The article would be empty if the unsourced material was removed. Leyo 22:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the contributor of that sentence (nearly nine years ago!) I have no idea where the information came from nor why I added it - it's very far from my areas of expertise. S a g a C i t y (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second thoughts It's in wiktionary so replacement by a soft redirect would seem to be the quickest and neatest solution. S a g a C i t y (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It's already in Wictionary. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Pichpich (talk) 00:26, 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 Speedy keep - Nomination withdrawn --Mdann52talk to me! 13:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Tell Me Another Morning[edit]

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

~~Non-notable book, does not meet WP:NBOOK guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn - --ukexpat (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, here are some reviews in seemingly reliable sources: 1, 2, 3, 4. I'm not familiar with reliable sources for cinema, so these might be worthless. Paviliolive (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [1] (PW: "Berger's heart-wrenching novel is an early eyewitness account of the holocaust, and this welcome reissue deserves a wide audience, particularly in high school and college curriculums.") [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (Jung Journal: "It is so poetical and lyrical and the experiences so simply stated that it is like no other book on the Holocaust experience I have ever read.") --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No assertion of notability, for one thing. The mere existences of reviews of books does not establish notability. Mangoe (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews are explicitly included as meeting criterion 1 of wp:NBOOK. If any of those sources are remotely third party and reliable (and I'm pretty sure several of them are) then this is clear cut. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm tempted to close this as a speedy keep but since I've done a fair amount of editing to the article I'll refrain. In any case, the book has received a large amount of reviews in reliable sources- which counts towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niama-Reisser, LLC[edit]

Niama-Reisser,_LLC[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Friedman[edit]

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

Not clear that she satisfies WP:BIO, the relevant notability guideline. I found nothing to support notability at newspaper archives. If someone could find the alluded-to but not cited Newsday obituary that might clarify what the basis for claimed notability is. as a "subway model." Edison (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Sources aren't sufficcient. If somebody can find actual sources to link to, it may work, but otherwise it isn't enough to be here. Sorry. SayItRight1 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article, as it stands makes no clear assertion of notability. I don't know what a Subway Model is, nor am I able to find out through googling. There is very little information provided in the article that would show that the subject was a notable model. The lack of sources in the article, along with a lack of detail make it very difficult to find any sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article referencing family documents would seem to indicate that what little we have is original research, and with only a vague reference to an obituary in Newsday, there is no way to check if this is a paid obit, or one created and run as an editorial decision as a news story. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janne Tulirinta[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights so he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 21:41, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Grice[edit]

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

delete, per WP:NGRIDIRON does not meet notability requirements. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding a lot of articles in a quick web search of bona fide third party sources that establish notability and are more than enough to surpass WP:GNG. They should be added to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:47, 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, Randykitty (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that subject clearly meets GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wieno (talk • contribs) 09:43, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidehiko Hasegawa[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and WP:GNG since the article's only link is to his fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 22:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not enough credentials to establish notability. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 22:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brand New School Office, Los Angeles[edit]

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

While Brand New School may or may not be notable (that's a topic for a different discussion), their Los Angeles office is certainly not independently notable. The article focuses on the architectural notability of the facility itself, which was honored (but not a winner) in Interior Design's 2013 Best of the Year awards. These awards honor four or five candidates each year in 45 different categories (see [14]), for a total of about 200 honorees (hardly a terribly exclusive honor). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent - doesn't deserve its own page and not separately notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous advertising, like everything else added by Cahsieh and 108.30.58.125 (previously 1100architecture before I softerblocked that account). Some of the articles created are notable, but not this one. —SMALL JIM 11:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sourcing + no in-depth coverage = Notability not demonstrated. --DAJF (talk) 13:24, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Seitler QC[edit]

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

Non-notable barrister with a busy, but not especially noteworthy, career. Many citations to cases in which he was involved which do not actually mention him, and many other citations to his own firm's website. Listing at Legal 500 does not, in itself, appear sufficient for notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added duplicate articles Johnathan seitler QC and Jonathan Seitler QC. (Apparently it took the author a few tries to get the spelling of his name correct.) Note that Jonathan Seitler QC is already the subject of its own AFD. The closing admin is urged to check the status of that AFD upon closure of this one. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks very promotional. I've deleted the version with the small s as a duplicate. The Jonathan S version has an AfD tag - but it seems to lead here... I've tagged Jacqueline1980's user page as promo as well - the same thing over again. I suppose we should be thankful that they haven't listed every case he's been on. I've not seen anything independent that discusses the subject in detail in that list. Peridon (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does lead here. I've corrected the comment above. I'm not sure what's happened at Jonathan S. Peridon (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I included both Johnathan Seitler QC and Jonathan Seitler QC in this AFD. Johnathan seitler QC had already been nominated for its own AFD before I became involved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The s version only had a CSD on it when I found it. The AfD for it has been closed subsequently. Confusing... My apologies... <8-( Peridon (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. The sources do not discuss Seitler himself but rather cases in which he was involved. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fails WP:BIO; possible vanity bio. ukexpat (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising. I would advise the creator to start by reading the guidelines and then come back and create a completely new article that meets them. Deb (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you give us a couple of days to rectify the problem, this was not meant as a promotional page, we are searching for articles.Jacqueline1980 (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moved this comment from the top of the page (where it had been inadvertently placed, overwriting the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE" template). In response: the AFD will run its normal course in seven days. If the article can be improved in that time, it might be kept. If not, and an improved version can be created later, it can be re-introduced, provided it is not just a duplicate or rehashing of the same article we have today. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you give me advice on how to save this article? Will this kind of link help http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10161872/Judge-must-decide-womans-true-identity-in-14m-court-battle.html I want to save the page Jonathan Seitler QC, the others can be deletedJacqueline1980 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, those links will not help, because they only mention Seitler in passing. The case may well be notable, but Seitler's involvement in it is not. WikiDan61

^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to be frank, there is nothing to save here. I think you will just have to accept that not every QC is notable enough for an article. For example, I know many QCs at the English bar who are at least as successful as m'learned friend Mr Seitlter, and none of them are notable by Wikipedia's definition. --ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question and who is the "us" to which you refer? If you are creating the article on behalf of the subject, please read WP:COI.--ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 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 speedy delete (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Johnathan Seitler QC) by Peridon (talk · contribs)

Johnathan seitler QC[edit]

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

WNOT:Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. The sources do not discuss Seitler himself but rather cases in which he was involved. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnathan Seitler QC WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:18, 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 all. I would close this AfD with consensus to merge, but there is no appreciable content to merge anywhere. I'll delete the articles; if anyone believes they are plausible search terms, feel free to re-create them as redirects. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 04:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of British films of the 2010s[edit]

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

These pages are a category (or disambiguation) masking as an article.

Also includes

List_of_British_films_of_the_1920s
List_of_British_films_of_the_1930s
List_of_British_films_of_the_1940s
List_of_British_films_of_the_1950s
List_of_British_films_of_the_1960s
List_of_British_films_of_the_1970s
List_of_British_films_of_the_1980s
List_of_British_films_of_the_1990s
List_of_British_films_of_the_2000s => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the content into List of British films and redirect as possible search terms. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Lugnuts's recommendation. We do not need to break out into decade. Consolidation is appropriate here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what does having a list of other pages give you that a category does not? Even if you merge all of the pages onto List of British films that page is effectively a diambiguation page and/or a category masquerading as an article. It provides no other information than a list of pages would. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of British films, and same for any other country and delink in templates. @Spudg, it's intended as a dab page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spudgfsh: There's no masquerading here. Per WP:CLT, we can theoretically have categories, lists, and navigation templates for the same subject matter. (Though probably not navigation templates here since it would be too large.) It is acceptable to have a list of lists. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point but what would the merge onto List of British films give you over and above what having Template:British_film_list on the page currently gives you? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spudg, do us a favour and also put the other decade dab pages up for delete and they can also all be merged into the mother list. There's no point in having multiple dabs page, we can redirect the decade pages then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're all marked for deleting and pointing to this discussion. I just couldn't work out how to easily get the template for them. A bit of lazyness on my part, sorry => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Obviously for some of the countries in which we don't yet have enough films for by year, we currently use the decade pages to list all the films of the decade in and we don't want to nuke those! But for all of the decade pages which are currently dab pages to the years they should all be redirected into the main list of xxx films by country lists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that there are other 'list of XXXX films of the yyyy's' for other countries (eg List of Italian films of the 1990s) that are of a similar nature. Making this change wiki-wide would be better as a discussion on a wikiproject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Film where a consensus can be gained throughout all of the members. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect They are lists of lists. Utterly useless but we might as well keep the pages as redirects. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These lists of lists serve no useful purpose. The subject is much better covered by Category:Lists of British films by year. We might have an equivalent list article for that, but it would be rather pointless. The annual lists are useful, but the decade lists (and also decade categories) just get in the way of navigation, not help it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woozle effect[edit]

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

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

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

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

This appears to be non-notable jargon. It covers a very large subject, and appears to be a psychological effect, yet it's only discussed in low quality social science articles on domestic violence. It doesn't appear to have any real backing by the social sciences or by cognitive psychologists. Unless someone can show how this is an "effect" or how it applies to more than just a few papers on domestic violence, it should be deleted. Using jargon in a Wikipedia page violates WP:MOS, so I'm assuming creating a page for that jargon does the same thing. It's typically a contested rule as well, so I would like the advice of anyone in the cognitive science field. It appears to be a mix between cognitive bias and meme so maybe it should be merged with on of those? Countered (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2014

Keep First of all, nominator gives no policy based reason for deletion. Second of all, these are not "low quality social science articles" that discuss this topic, they're published in refereed academic journals and are already cited in the article. Finally, the main sources do not just use the term "woozle effect," but in fact discuss it. For instance,
- Richard J. Gelles (Nov 1980). "Violence in the Family: A Review of Research in the Seventies". Journal of Marriage and Family. 42 (4): 873–885. The 'Woozle Effect' begins when one investigator reports a finding, such as Gelles's (1974) report [omit a number of overly specific details] In the 'Woozle Effect,' a second investigator will then cite the first study's data, but without the qualifications (such as done by Straus, 1974a). Others will then cite both reports and the qualified data gain the status of generalizable 'truth.'
- Donald G. Dutton (30 May 2006). Rethinking Domestic Violence. UBC Press. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-7748-1304-4.: This source discusses it in detail for half a page.

These sources alone seem to me to be sufficient to establish notability. There are other sources in the article as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to read like original research. Also, mentioning a word in an academic article does not give it notability - if it's only supported by citations within articles, and not articles that talk about it on it's own. It's not just that it doesn't have enough citations, because it clearly has many, it's that the citations are all within one field, and none of the articles are dedicated to the topic itself. It appears that it is nothing more than jargon taken from multiple article, and spliced together here in a format that would give it notability. If there was a source which talked about it on it's own then it wouldn't violate WP:RELIABLE but as of right now it's clearly written like original research because the original research doesn't appear to exist. The sheer scope of the topic merits more than a few mentions in articles not focused on the subject itself. Countered (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. There don't need to be any sources which talk about it on its own.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where it's gotten more than just a passing mention? It seems to me like significant coverage backs up what I've been saying about the article appearing to be original research. Countered (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per alf laylah wa laylah --Penbat (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there is nothing wrong with this article, except that it has offended the feminists at the anti-mens rights subreddit /r/againstmensrights. You can see that here: http://www.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights/comments/1wxaoa/discovered_wikipedia_page_with_clear_mra_bias/?sort=confidence with a backup here: http://archive.is/YjXMQ

Their brigade against this article is not primarily because they perceive it to be a poor article, but because they believe this article, this word, is used for anti domestic violence purposes.

I recently stumbled upon this[1] wikipedia article about the "Woozle Effect." A quick perusal of the article pretty clearly reveals the work of MRAs, and a google search[2] makes it very clear that the term is a favorite tool of MRA rhetoric:

Additionally, if you do a reddit search for the word "woozle"[6] most of the results are either posts in /r/MensRights[7] or those same posts mirrored in /r/POLITIC[8] .

While the term itself may have some merit[9] as a rhetorical device, it appears to be used almost exclusively in discussions of domestic violence from an antifeminist perspective. As a result, it seems dubious whether it deserves its own wikipedia article, and it would be nice to either have the article revised to reflect a more neutral stance or have it deleted entirely.

Personally I think that not only should the article be kept, but the editors who created this deletion nonsense should be sanctioned for wasting time and trying to corrupt the wikipedia

184.101.115.101 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar lists 440 different results for Woozle: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=woozle

Can someone seriously look at those results and claim it's not notable in Academia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Compare it to a concept that is relatively similar, the meme, which has over 2 million results, or cognitive bias, which has over 1.5 million results, it clear that it isn't nearly as notable as the current article claims it to be. Countered (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS - and also WP:NPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger, 184 wasn't relying on raw goog, but upon GoogScholar, which is more 'reliable' at indicating wikiReliability (as WP:GHITS mentions near the bottom). 184 *was* failing to be WP:NICE enough for my tastes as well, though I don't see any direct personal attacks... and a mitigating circumstance is they had only been an editor for 58 minutes when they posted above, prolly arriving straight from reddit. They were angry enough they might not have been salvageable beyond the total of 89 minutes that they lasted, but then again, maybe they koudda. Your response was about six hours after 184 had already had called it a night, so you didn't impact their feelings one whit. Nor did I. Anyhoo, figured I would mention the search thing, and while I was here, suggest that you might in the future suggest WP:AGF (rather than WP:NPA) to future 184-types, who get hot under the collar. This particular 184 *had* heard of AGF at some point, and was loudly complaining elsewhere that they weren't getting it, but again, that's nothing to do with either of us. Hope this helps, and hey, thanks for improving wikipedia, I see your name at the noticeboards, which is tough work. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice sources. OccultZone (Talk) 18:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets Wikipedia notability requirements. Related question about sourcing: before reading this page I was only aware of "Woozle Effect" as used in creationism discussions (creationists tend to cite each other so that one uncited claim grows into a list of citations in later books) A quick search didn't find any reliable sources for that usage -- just blogs and discussion forums -- but if such sources can be found it might help to make this page be more about the general concept and less about the concept's use by one particular group. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reference to the woozle in social science research and publications dates back to at least ~~1963~~1953 (see below).
- Wohlwill, Joachim F. (1963). "Piaget's system as a source of empirical research". Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development. 9 (4). Wayne State University Press: 253–262. JSTOR 23082932. --Godot13 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, yet the article lists two other creators of the term after that date. How can a well known term have such an unknown history? The article actually lists three possible creators, with three differing dates, all after it's mention in this essay. To me this doesn't seem to be an effect that has any notability, it seem more like a way that differing authors attacked on another over the years, making it jargon and not a real "effect". Countered (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how well known the term is either within or outside of academia, but the flawed research phenomena it describes is very well known. The article demonstrates the evolution of the term and its increasing "popularity" (I use that word loosely). I'm not sure that who created the term is as important as the fact that there is a term to refer to a specific phenomenon of flawed methodology. Bevan, William Jr. (1953). "Modern psychologists: scientific woozle hunters? An opinion in outline". Nordic Psychology Monographs (4): 6–24. suggests that the woozle connection dates back to 1953. It seems that a few researchers initially referred to it as hunting for the woozle or woozle hunting, but later research studies suggest that it has gained traction as the "Woozle effect." (see Stransky, Michelle; Finkelhor, David (2008–2012). Sex trafficking of minors:How many juveniles are being prostituted in the US? (PDF) (Report). Crimes Against Children Research Center. pp. 6–24. and Weiner, Neil A.; Hala, Nicole (2008). Measuring human trafficking: Lessons from New York City (PDF) (Report). Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved 5 February 2014.). I have written and published research in academic journals and am very familiar with the pitfalls of the Woozle effect. However, until I read this article yesterday, I couldn't have told you, with confidence, that these research pitfalls had a specific name... --Godot13 (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, the idea is very well known in academia, but not as a "woozle". In "Better Angels of Our Nature" Pinker refers to bloated combat death statistics which are cited over and over as a "meme" - which is the actual term for it. This page only exists because a few people called it a "woozle" instead, either not knowing of the term meme, or in an attempt to create jargon. It's not as widely used as meme either, and has only been used in passing by a handful of domestic violence researchers. It's clear to me that it isn't a valid term at all, just some jargon that someone made up to reference something that already has a name. Countered (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The words "meme" and "woozle" mean very different things. "Meme" can be used to connote false results the perception of whose truth is reinforced by repetition, but this is far from the only meaning and is a more modern, minor, and metaphorical usage relative to Richard Dawkins's definition when he coined it, which is still the most widely used meaning of the word in the scholarly literature as opposed to on chat forums. The word "woozle" in our context not only connotes these kind of results but actually denotes them. You're comparing one fairly minor connotative meaning of the word "meme" as if it were comparable to the one and only denotative meaning of the word "woozle." Also, if you're seriously making the argument that the words are synonyms, which they're most emphatically not, you ought to be sending "meme" to AfD. Dawkins invented the word in 1976 whereas the word "woozle" has, as Godot13 shows, been in use in the sense at hand for longer.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The example that Godot13 gives isn't "the woozle effect" but "to chase the woozle": this is why there are 4 different sources for the creation of the term. The way that Pinker uses meme is exactly how woozle is described in this wikipeida page - "when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence misleads individuals". Also, calling it a "word" is even more out there as it's more a neologism, or like I've been saying, jargon, for something that has been documented in higher number as "meme". Countered (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. In English and in every natural language, many words have more than one meaning. The word "meme," invented in 1976 by Richard Dawkins, has as its original meaning this per the OED:A cultural element or behavioural trait whose transmission and consequent persistence in a population, although occurring by non-genetic means (esp. imitation), is considered as analogous to the inheritance of a gene. It has since acquired another meaning, not yet documented by the OED but certainly valid, which is more or less synonymous with the equivalent expressions "woozle" and "woozle effect." And as for me calling "woozle" a word when "it's more a neologism," I think you're certainly confused. After all, as the OED tells us, a neologism is A word or phrase which is new to the language; one which is newly coined. A neologism is a kind of word. In fact, "meme" is a neologism, and of more recent vintage than "woozle (effect)." Jargon is made of words too, you know. I'll spare you the definition, but I encourage you to look it up if you don't believe me. None of it is relevant. The question is whether it's notable. I think it is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced article on a notable phenomenon. Miniapolis 00:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW ? --Penbat (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate to suggest that as SNOW in these cases usually suggests a bad-faith nomination, which this clearly does not appear to be ES &L 12:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect to the panda, I've never heard "SNOW being an indicator of bad faith" before. A perfectly good-faith nomination can have not a snowball's chance of having any other result after a certain point, and keeping it open past that point is just bureaucracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. That's not the case at all. — Scott • talk 17:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Well sourced and clearly notable. That the existence of this article has annoyed a gang of pro-censorship idiots on Reddit is not a reason to delete it. Reyk _YO! 10:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there were more information on it outside of papers on domestic violence I wouldn't be contesting it. So far no one has shown how it's actually an effect that has any real notability: for example, all you done is call me a "pro censorship idiot". Perhaps if you showed evidence that it's used as a term in the way it's described in the article, outside of a few papers that span 50 years, then it might be notable. Countered (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Godot13. NE Ent 12:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination was in good-faith, but WP:GNG applies, and academic sources from 'just' one field of inquiry are still WP:RS, after all. Besides, GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar show evidence of use outside the original niche, in any case (our article could use broadening/expansion to mention operations research e.g. employee productivity). Gelles'80/82/85/88 are cited between 50 and 400 times each; Straus'07 has 29+10 cites. There is one paper by Schumm/Martin/Bollman/Jurich with 21 cites called "Classifying Family Violence: Whither the Woozle?" which has the keyword in the title (and the "woozle effect" in the abstract-paragraph). Notability is not temporary, and this term is still found in books and papers from the past decade, not just the previous millenium, in any case. That said, Woozle effect could use some background which explains that this is a particular mostly-field-specific variation on a broader theme. Suggest adding a sub-sub-section Confirmation bias#in the social sciences which summarizes this type in a sentence or two. It *is* distinct from the usual sort of "testing ideas in a one-sided fashion" seen e.g. in early medicine; woozling is specific to citing-valid-research-in-an-iteratively-invalid-way... hence the nod to A.A.Milne is apt. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As one can see, this is an article that can't be deleted because of sources. The articles seems well-cited, with citations to reliable source. Additionally, it's about a notable topic; while not known as well to the general public, it is well-known inside some circles (like psychology). Epicgenius (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator did have some points, although asking this to be deleted per MOS/WP:JARGON was seriously misguided. The actual points/concerns are that (1) while this topic does come up in a fair number of publication over the last three decades (2) most have only brief coverage of it, at the level of a sentence or two, e.g. [15] [16]. Scarcity of in-depth coverage (empirical studies of this effect) basically leaves this page at the level of WP:DICTDEF + mostly anecdotal evidence. There are a couple of "surveys" like the one from the Vera Institute of Justice, but these were not published to study the effect simply from a psychological perspective, but rather to argue it exists in a specific field of study/publications in order to advance their own agenda in that area: "This trend underscores the general neglect of methodology in research on human trafficking." (The VIS study is part of larger self-published report, submitted to the DOJ, although it was financially supported by a NIJ grant.) I think the article is going to have hard-to-solve WP:NPOV issues as a result of that. The 1953 "Modern psychologists: scientific woozle hunters? An opinion in outline." seems to have exactly one citation in Google Scholar (and that is a self-citation in the author's subsequent publication [17]), so I wouldn't hold by breath as to its value to the field. And if you think Donald G. Dutton doesn't have an agenda, you should read a summary of his research findings here, which starts with "Lesbian battering is more frequent than heterosexual battering." (That finding of his is often quoted on counter-feminist blogs.) Or listen for couple of minutes to him speaking here: his main research seems to be overcoming/replacing the Duluth model. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I thought some more about this, and unfortunately this can't quite merged with confirmation bias. There is only one book which even discusses them close together [18], but without saying they are the same or even what their relative relationship might be. The examples section is unfortunately all sourced from the primary sources actually using the term (rather than any secondary sources observing that others use the term), which is generally discouraged by WP:NEO. The people theorizing about the woozle effect are generally also those using it as a rhetorical instrument (to smack their opposition), so we can't easily separate primary and secondary sources. There are some exceptions to this, for example the Father-Daughter Relationships book I've linked in this paragraph only cautions about the woozle effect in general, but doesn't target it at any one issue in particular either on that page or anywhere else in the book (using that term anyway.) On the the other hand, if we remove all the examples, all that's left is basically a WP:DICTDEF and some thin theorizing as to what it relates to. Its use in a few different sub-fields of social science (human trafficking, domestic violence) probably qualifies this for WP:GNG in some way. We do have a somewhat similar article called just-so story, which is based on a fairly similar choice of sources (mostly users of the term). Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is some (but not alot) of evidence of generalising to human trafficking and cancer - indicating some sort of general uptake of the term and hence notability.....and it doesn't quite fit elsewhere as it has a rather specific connotation in sourcing from one journal to others that cite information from it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. I've missed the cancer book [19], which doesn't quite give any examples of what it considers woozles in its own field, but uses it in an advisory fashion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this law paper by Michael Sarbanes (who seems to be the son of Paul Sarbanes, but that's not really important) seems to give an interesting example (GS snippet): “Indeed, the rule appears to have grown into a "well settled" doctrine by "Woozle" reasoning alone. [...] In the Winnie the Pooh story, Pooh and Piglet, looking for a dreaded Woozle in the snowy woods, walk in a circle and come upon their own tracks.” I don't have (free) access to the full paper though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost 200 hits on Google books suggest it is not a "non-notable jargon". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment WP:GOOGLEHITS style arguments aren't true indicators of notability. Quality matters, no numbers. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amr El-Samra[edit]

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

Latest of many unreferenced vanity pages, created by several similarly named accounts. He fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. It could have been speedy deleted as spam: it's been speedied and BLP prodded several times at Amr El Samra, Amr El-Samra, Amr I. El-Samra, User:Amr El-Samra, etc. But I thought I should take it to AFD, since removing the promotional parts with a shovel would leave ~~nothing~~ little of value. Ruby Murray 14:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 14:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 14:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete and probably salt. It is possible that his various actions in international trade make him marginally notable, although I suspect not. But the present article is more of a family album and is definitely a puff piece, and it is clear that the creator of the page, who seems also to be the subject, will not settle for the brief stub which contains all the encyclopedic content that is verifiable about this person. Moreover, notability is at best marginal and is not established by any sources now in the article, in my view. DES ^(talk) 15:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced BLP and for comments above: this article is nowhere neutral and subject is not notable. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above. It is very promotional and not particularly noteworthy from a google search of the name. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: Is this discussion closed then? Is the matter settled? If so, state that clearly. Otherwise the entry gets recreated all over again (see page history) by zealous page patrollers like me.Super48paul (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Mr. El-Samra has tried to blank this latest incarnation of his autobiography for the fifth time, apparently hoping to avoid an outcome of deletion on this AFD. That won't work, Amr, so give it a rest. Ruby Murray 12:17, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Datagogies[edit]

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

Author-contested PROD. Neologism that fails WP:GNG. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 14:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 11:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides current information that is verified by information on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJET63 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only evidence provided that this term exists and is used is a single journal article from 2008. ElKevbo (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been reinforced with sources and references confirming and verifying its existence and relevance to users navigating Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJET63 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 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 Zavvi (retailer). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zavvi.com[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - WP:BEFORE epic fail. Was kept in an AfD in 2009, and I can find all sorts on this company since then: [20], [21], [22], [23] to name but a few. Their PS Vita cockup made an enormous media storm, but they have received coverage for numerous other things as well. Did you look for sources at all? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first two seem like reliable independent sources and all they actually say is that the company sent out the wrong product to some customers. Do you really think that amounts to notability? If so, anyone that is mentioned twice on the BBC could have an article. There is nothing distinctive or notable about this company. They just sell stuff on the internet and sometimes get it wrong. So what? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Spy is very clearly an RS, and if you actually did any legwork and looked at things, you'd know that. Internet Retailing may or may not be, but that's irrelevant. The company has received a lot of coverage in various reliable sources, and your comment amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are also sources in the previous AfD that I didn't bother repeating. If you're still going to stick to your blatantly incorrect rationale, consider [24], [25], amongst various coverage on the PS Vita issue. You are blatantly misappropriating policy here, and the company clearly satisfies GNG. Do the sensible thing and withdraw this invalid AfD. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down and stop throwing policies around like bricks. We try to do things consensually here as you should know. The sources you have quoted do not seem very reliable to me and even if they are, they don't add up to very much. The company exists, it sells stuff, and it promotes it's products on computer gaming web sites etc. It doesn't add up to notability in my view, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination, sorry. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously doubting you've even attempted to look at the sources I've shown you here, much less followed WP:BEFORE and looked for sources yourself. Otherwise, you wouldn't be persisting with the clearly inaccurate claim that there is no notability to be found... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zavvi (retailer) back at Zavvi. I certainly don't see deletion as appropriate here, but with such a short article with such a clear relation to the article on the shops chain, a merge seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against a merge, as outright deletion is most definitely inappropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zavvi (retailer). Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zavvi (retailer) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gigabyte (virus writer)[edit]

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

The entire article is 1 line, and in any case, simply getting arrested isn't really enough to meet notability guidelines. If it did, we'd have thousands of police blotter arrestee pages. .אבי נ (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I initially didn't believe that she was notable, but I did find mention of her in various academic texts such as this one. If it was just news coverage I'd agree, but the book coverage cements her notability. It needs some cleaning and probably constant maintenance to keep it neutral (as previous versions seemed to be written to be favorable towards Gigabyte), but there's enough here to merit a keep after some searching. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to argue with that list of references. Some of them seem a bit light on coverage, but, overall, it seems fairly conclusive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Tokyogirl179. She is in five published books. Enough merit to keep. Venudxb (talk) 06:51, 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 Speedy keep (non-admin close), repeat of AfD closed days ago. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Zissman[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements. Has appeared on reality TV twice, winning nothing. Her business is not notable. Her personal life is not notable other than in the tabloids for having a high sex drive which she appears content to flaunt in the media. Is that a valid mark of notability? This is a WP:FANCRUFT article. Leaky Caldron 10:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware until the page compiled that this junk was voted to be kept yesterday. Shame, it is utter dross. Can an Admin. please close this as a duplicate? Leaky Caldron 10:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created this as a redirect as she was a runner-up on The Apprentice so thought it would be useful in that respect, but this shouldn't be an article. Like you say, it's utter dross and she's not notable for anything significant. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We closed this yesterday with consensus. I think it was marginal then - but what's done is done and to delete would be wp:DRV Neonchameleon (talk) 01:04, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hirooka[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. This player fails WP:GNG (has not received significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not appeared in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 09:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there's [26] and [27], but those are fairly local sources (not so much for the team he was playing for, but just low-circulation sources), and everything else is literally as local as he is. Some of the claims in the article need referencing, and I can't find RS to back them up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That just looks to be WP:ROUTINE coverage and I cannot find anything substantial. Giant Snowman 13:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no; not everyone covers trialists, and even those that do don't cover all trialists. It's certainly nowhere near enough for a credible GNG claim though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:48, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Label Communications Ltd[edit]

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

Unreferenced & WP:COI article. Presumed non-notable. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:34, 4 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) 05:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence found that this firm is/was notable. (More coverage was found of a US marketing firm of this name.) AllyD (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, Hoovers' has a bit of data on a company with this name, but that is a Pittsburgh-based company (and with 5 employees and $340K in annual sales probably not notable either.)Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with some RS refs. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:35, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas R. Porter[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. While Kanatsiohareke is likely notable enough (since Wikipedia seems to have a very low bar for place notability), being the spiritual leader of that community is not notable enough for the guideline. A Google search turns up a couple of websites, but nothing reliable enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Wieno (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 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. But please, this article requires some urgent love and attention. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C. K. Rhodes[edit]

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

A captain in the Indian Army Reserve of Officers during World War I and expanded a golf course. References are related to normal events... marriage, college, promotion and death. Bgwhite (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG.TheLongTone (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep WP:AFD is not cleanup. He was a fairly high ranking civil servant in the Indian Civil Service, and was Joint Secretary to the Home Department. He was awarded the CIE (i.e. Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire), which is equivalent to a CBE. We always keep CBEs. He's in Who's Who (indicating that professional experts on notability considered him notable). I have previously commented that the competency of the editors of Who's Who is massively better than the cack-handed efforts of certain Wikipedians. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please mind comments about contributor behavior, and discuss instead the content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? I did discuss the content - which is more than the nominator. The comments were general rather than specific in nature. But let's have a look specifically at this nomination, since you brought it up - The nominator apparently failed to understand what CIE is, or why he would be awarded it (granted the article has been written by someone equally clueless and doesn't do anything to help explain this); then failed to do background research to understand what ICS and Order of the Indian Empire are, failed to look up in either Who's Who and The Times archive (which is WP:BEFORE) and then nominated it with a clear level of sarcasm about that is more offensive than any reasonable comment on the general lack of competence of ham-fisted amateurs, and got one sheep delete vote. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the CIE (which actually ranks two levels above the CBE in the order of precedence) is one of those awards that is considered to meet criterion #1 of WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The problem with the article is that it says far too little about his career as opposed to his golf. Tag as a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 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. No prejudice against re-creation Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nebohodimo[edit]

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

Unknown piece of software - Altenmann >t 05:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced software of unclear notability. A search shows mention on forums and download sites, but did not turn up any RS references.Dialectric (talk) 12:11, 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. No prejudice against re-creation Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Jobe (compilation album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, and no indication album is notable beyond it being released. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 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. No prejudice against re-creation Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem (Kari Jobe album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, and no indication album is notable beyond it being released. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 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. No prejudice against re-creation Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Throneroom Worship: Live Acoustic Worship[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, and no indication album is notable beyond it being released. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 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 redirect to Leominster#History. Where he's already mentioned. Consensus is that we don't have enough about this saint to support an article. Sandstein 08:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelmod of Leominster[edit]

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

The article is not notable under WP:BIO. There is no real description of him in the article, and a google books search shows passing, non-notable mentions in works. Google scholar returns no results. No real information can be added to make the article notable. KJ ^{click here} 04:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~merge/redirect Element of history (Saint, they say, right?). Mentioned in some books. - Altenmann >t 05:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good, Altenmann. Please start to add material, backing up the additions with reference to these books. Then I might !vote "keep". (As it is, I can't see why I might so !vote.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I did, didn't I? Even before your invitation. I increased the text 25% (in sentence count) and doubled the number of references :-) - Altenmann >t 16:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. I got my chronology (of edits, not saints) mixed up. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:D A R C 12345 (the article creator) removed AfD tag and replaced article with a redirect; I reverted his edit. (I'm not sure if this can be taken as a vote for redirecting.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to claim that if he was a saint he was inherently notable. But [url=http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Saints_Index]the Catholic Encyclopaedia has no record of him[/url] so I'm struggling to show he is a saint. If he was a saint then wp:NTEMP might be pushed to its limit but holds - but at the moment htere isn't enough to show existence. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grant for a moment that that encyclopedia has made a mistake and that he was a saint. Was being a "saint" then so different from being an "expert" now? True, there might have been only one institution that was supposed to be deciding whether or not people were saints, but it wasn't as if the pope frequently fired off to all branch offices his updated master spreadsheet of saints. -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that nothing is known about him beyond being buried in a certain place. Since the name is mentioned in several books to this end, merge/redirect is fair. We are not talking about vanity of some 'expert'. Saint or not, he is part of recorded history, even it is cow bones buried there, not his. - Altenmann >t 16:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Having double checked the canonisation criteria, it's likely that he lived before 990 and certainly before 1150. Canonisation (and even beatification) through Rome involves enough fact checking that I'd consider it made someone inherently notable. But it was a lot more haphazard before 990. And on reflection I'm going to say that the other reason for deletion (or redirection) is that this page will never be more than a stub based on the links. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere or other. Leominster, I suppose. Because we don't now seem likely to find out any more about him than that this is where he was buried. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. English saint and martyr. Plenty of references: [28], [29], etc. -- 101.119.28.190 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those two sources are evidence for the claim that he was a saint and martyr. But who snuffed him? How? Why? When? They don't say. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are the whole peoples unknown who and when snuffed them and still have wikipedia articles. It does not matter that we don't know much. Fact is this saint is puzzled about in multiple serious sources. One book even says "his cult was well-established by preconquest liturgical evidence". Of course, a redirect would be fine (I doubt there are relatives and girlfriends to insist on a vanity article :-). - Altenmann >t 15:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to Priory Church, Leominster. Any burial will be in the graveyard of a church. We know nothing whatever of who Aethelmod was or what he did. We know so exceptionally little that I do not think we can really have a satisfactory article on him. The target might have been Leominster Abbey or Leominster nunnery. Indeed, there seems to me a very good case for merging those three articles into one. They all relate to thge same church, which was a Saxon minster, then a medieval priory, whose nave survives as the parish church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:D A R C 12345 there is currently insufficent information to warrant a full article on him at this stage. I have been trying to get to a particular library where some books may have more info on him, but thus far I have been thwarted in doing so. What we do know is that the document he is known from focus's mainly on very old Saxon Saints (6th & 7th cent mostly) including many venacular and very localised in their veneration, rather than official Pope approved saints. I think it safe to currently say - he existed but know nothing bejond that. a short line in the Priory Church, Leominster article is probably more appropriate. (I was probably premature in creating the article).
Redirect, ordinarily I'd argue that any properly minted Catholic saint is notable, but in this case there's just not enough information to write an article. Perhaps a redirect to On the Resting-Places of the Saints, which is the main place this person is known from would be best? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment/Question: I want to close but do not know where to redirect to. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:53, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adopting Healthy, Sustainable Diets: Key Opportunities and Barriers Report[edit]

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

While a cursory search turned up some secondary sources for this report, I doubt a single report produced within the EU bureaucracy warrants its own article without a demonstration of significantly more impact. Wieno (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of importance or notability. - Altenmann >t 05:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorena Sanchez[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without explanation by IP without edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete rank-and-file videofucker. no evidence of notability. - Altenmann >t 05:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conur with nominator. There is nothing to suggest notablility. Finnegas (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG as the nominator states. No substantial RS coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barloc of Norbury[edit]

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

The subject does not meet notability guidelines, especially WP:BIO. A google books search only shows a passing mention in several works, and no other notable mentions. Thanks! -KJ ^{click here} 04:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe an entry in an Oxford University reference work is, for historical figures, sufficient to establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. The information provided is certainly enough to establish there is a plausible search term involved (even if the article title may not be the best). An encyclopedia, after all, strives to be encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historical figure; meets guidelines. - Altenmann >t 05:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saints are always considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This will always be a short article, because (apparently) litlte is known, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 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, withdrawn with no dissenting opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ongley Darvall[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO more generally. Subject was never successfully elected to the House of Commons, he never reached an ambassadorial-level diplomatic post, and I can't find any secondary sources besides the Who's Who link. Wieno (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator because of the CBE. Good find Necrothesp. Wieno (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN#3 because "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". This section is important as it recognises that subjects should not be assessed solely on their political career, which was often not their primary career. This is true of Darvall who also had notability outside of politics. Wieno admits to only locating one of the three secondary sources in the article, but nevertheless chose to nominate AfD which was an action that does not adhere to WP:BEFORE, by-passing WP:ATD. The other two sources would have been located had the nominator followed WP:BEFORE#D1:"The minimum search expected is a Google Books". I have just checked and can confirm that both of the other two sources can still be located in Google Books. Trying to assess if a subject has "significant coverage in reliable sources" can be difficult and very subjective. Fortunately in assessing UK subjects, life is a bit easier; I would argue that any UK subject who managed to force their way into the esteemed UK publication Who's Who has sufficient notability to make it into wikipedia. As the article confirms, Darvall has this notability. As the nominator describes themselves as a Canadian (a fine bunch of people) it is possible that they will not have heard of Who's Who and even if they had, may well have not been able to access http://www.ukwhoswho.com without a UK library card.Graemp (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I maintain my nomination. Your argument is essentially that while he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN he meets WP:GNG. From what I can tell there has not been significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Some books have cited his book as a source, but that is not the same thing. Nor is being mentioned in passing as a candidate in a book about the Liberal Party in that era. Wieno (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - err..."Your argument is essentially that while he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN" ...just a second, I said "The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN#3"!!! It seems as if you have now managed to locate the secondary sources you failed to locate in your introduction, which is very good news. However, you say "From what I can tell, there has not been significant coverage..." Your initial inability to track identified sources in the article undermines any sentence you chose to start in such a way. It pleases me that you are not questioning my Who's Who point about notability. For anyone without a UK Library card, who has never seen Who's Who, I can confirm that the detail they contain on most individuals is sufficient for a primary source in any article and although there may be other sources, they will often duplicate content, which is why I did not bother to include them. Finally I would have thought that a student, even a Canadian Student such as Wieno, would have been quick to acknowledge any individuals notability if they had served as their country's National Student President as Darvall did. Graemp (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion," means that people who do not meet the specific guideline for politicians are not precluded from meeting the general notability guideline. You appear to be arguing that the subject meets the GNG, which is referenced by the politician guideline but is not part of the guideline. A subject who is notable because of GNG does not automatically meet the politician guideline, they just have a different route to notability. As to Who's Who, I am not disputing that it is a reliable source, or that it contains sufficient information to ground the article in. But the notability guideline is not about ensuring there are sufficient sources to create a reliable article (though that certainly plays a role), it is about using reliable secondary sources as a proxy to determine whether the topic of an article is 'worthy of notice'. If a topic has had significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then it is presumed that a topic notable enough to receive such coverage is notable enough for Wikipedia. So far I've found one reliable source (Who's Who) that provides significant coverage of the subject, a few books that provide a passing reference to the subject when discussing the Liberal Party, and one short article from a local paper mentioning that he's moving from Utah to a posting in Washington. Other than that, his name only comes up in Google Books where one of his works are being cited in another book. As to being NUS President, I personally don't believe that independently provides notability (especially at such an earlier phase of the NUS's development). If being the head of the NUS at that time was notable, then presumably there would be enough coverage of him through that role that he'd meet the GNG anyway. Wieno (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You state "As to being NUS President, I personally don't believe that independently provides notability (especially at such an earlier phase of the NUS's development)." As I mentioned above, one should not assess someone's notability on any particular aspect of their life but on their life as a whole, therefore we should not be assessing Darvall's notability as NUS President independently. WP:POLITICIAN clearly recognises this point. You also seem to be arguing that because Darvall was the 7th NUS President he is going to be less notable than those who followed him. I don't understand that logic. Few would argue that Alexander Mackenzie has less notability because he became Prime Minister of Canada only 6 years after the position was created. There is another relevant issue that needs to be addressed, and that is the evolving nature of the internet. Day by day, more and more historical information is being added and also being presented in a more accessible way. I created the article on Darvall last October, and even in the short space of time since then, I have been able to access more relevant information on him which given time could be added to his article. Before Who's Who went fully on-line a couple of years ago, I could have still created this wikipedia article from hardback editions but I would have no doubt faced comments from others pointing out that the source I provided could not be verified on-line. However, we are where we are and regardless of any other information that exists, we have an on-line verifiable independent and authorative Internationally recognised source that determined he had sufficient notability to be included during his lifetime. Graemp (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:POLITICIAN but as an author too. I should declare that I came here having seen it above a message I left regarding an inappropriate CSD for another article. After seeing this also perhaps User Wieno you should re read GNG and other related criteria. You probably also should not tag with a speedy for deletion any sourced article. Best regards all the same. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Awarded the CBE in 1954, which has always been held to meet criterion #1 of WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CBE just scrapes through. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 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 withdrawn. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrtech[edit]

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

I've spent a bit of time trying to find truly independent coverage for this company, but what can be found is very thin. Besides their demise, which was indeed covered by a short press article in a mainstream newspaper, everything else I could turn up are press releases or barely edited press releases published in venues like EE Times (they have a very low threshold for what they consider "news" and readily republish press releases with minor changes.) There was one feature[ish] article in EE Times about software-defined radio co-written by a Lyrtech exec [30], which seem to indicate a more genuine interest in the company from that venue, but nothing that really comes across as independent. They have a number of mentions in Google Books too, but I think they are too few to make the company notable. Maybe someone else can turn up something to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH? I'm not fond of piecing together a company article from press releases. The Deloitte award was basically automatic for being in the "50 fastest growing Canadian tech companies with the highest percentage revenue growth over five years". But we can hardly tell how they made that money, what were their main products, how much market share they had in their heyday, etc. because WP:CORPDEPTH coverage is missing. What we have here is basically is a sketchy, boom-then-bust story of another electronics firm with no real insights into how that happened either on the up or down slope; WP:MILL seems to apply at the present level of coverage. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:40, 3 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) 23:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find that they received a $5M government contract in 2007 [31] (that's the year they got the Deloitte revenue growth award). It's probably related if not the main cause of that growth, but putting something like that in the article is verging on WP:SYN even if just by juxtaposition. Lack of independent, in-depth coverage connecting the disparately reported events makes writing a policy-compliant article very difficult. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This (in French) is the most in-depth article so far. Basically, it confirms that the company had its heyday in 2007 having 225 employees then, to drop to "barley 60" three years later. We aren't really told why or how that happened, except that by 2011 they had debts of $12M (and apparently found $7.5M to prop themselves--which in hindsight wasn't enough.) That article also says that company was "almost broke" in 2002 as well. Maybe the wiki article can be salvaged, though it's still going to be sketchy... The way it was written when started this article was a PR piece though (really, it only cited two press releases). Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find much else and I've pretty much finished all Canadian web sources even mentioning the company; there's only something like 15 pages of google hits on Canadian sites. [32] Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually managed to find plenty more sources now; there are many more articles in La Presse (all in French) about the company [33]. For some reason, if I just search the .ca domain, Google seems not to find anything from affaires.lapresse.ca, which has most of the articles. I'm not sure why that happens. Anyway, I'm withdrawing the AfD nomination, although the article still needs a lot of work, the problems now appear WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:24, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MySupermarket[edit]

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

Not notable. Seems to be essentially advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Source examples include:

The Guardian
Daily Mail
Daily Mail
Good Housekeeping
Marketing Week
ABC News
ABC News
The Grocer
The Grocer
Tech Crunch
Campaign

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Northamerica1000 and a simple google search shows it's got quite a bit of in-depth media coverage. --CyberXRef^☎ 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per WP:OTHERSTUFF and Amazon fresh. Meets N, per ref brought by Northamerica1000 --Shuki (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep entirely per Northamerica1000 who's found well sourced info, Also AFD isn't used as a clean up solution either!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Wolf Optimizer[edit]

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

Delete, appears to be written by someone connected to the software, does not appear to be a notable software at this time. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Mirjalili et al. in 2014" kind of gives it away, as does the username. Alimirjalili, however, please don't be dissuaded, and know that specialised writers are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. I'm sure that at least some of this material has a place in some other article, but don't know what that article is. James^x12345 21:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotion of a recently published academic project. No independent coverage. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, moderately interesting, but it pretty much all seems to be based on a single paper by Mirjalili. I couldn't find any other substantial coverage of the software or the paper that might indicate notability.

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

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

The result was keep. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bleep.com[edit]

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

Not notable. Advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, perhaps weakly. Promotional tone can be corrected by copy editing. Source examples include:

The Evening Standard
Billboard
The Wire
Playground magazine (about the source)
Design Week (about the source)
PC Advisor (short review)

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entirely per Northamerica1000 who's found well sourced info, Also AFD isn't used as a clean up solution either!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMR Test Labs[edit]

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

The references prove it exists. Nothing more. Another AfC product. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only sources of interest I could find were reports that the company Curtiss-Wright was acquiring them, the rest were just press releases. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:42, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in Benton County, Indiana, 2012[edit]

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

Usually this kind of information is put in a section on politics/voter registration statistics/voting habits in the last elections on the article on a county or municipality (usually right next to census data). This article is superfluous and ought to be merged into Benton County, Indiana per WP:MERGE ColonelHenry (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 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) 01:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The United States has 3144 counties and county equivalents, and we can't expect to create and maintain that many articles about every presidential election. Presidential elections are customarily analyzed at the state level where electoral college votes are allocated, not at the county level. The exceptions are Nebraska and Maine, where electoral college votes are allocated partially by congressional district. County by county analysis of presidential votes is not of any significance, in my view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I mean, really. No such user (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary source coverage. If no one else has written about this topic, Wikipedia should not be the first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhalese–Portuguese War[edit]

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

"Article" contains no useful information about the war it says to cover, just a list of battles The Banner talk 01:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Strange statement about "no useful information". I find it quite useful and verified that the war was indeed, and there are books sources to this end. - Altenmann >t 05:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Altenmann. Sinhelese–Portuguese War are series battle fought in Sri Lanka and are well sourced articles.This was red link hence created a disamg which linked the battles in the first place.This article is clearly sourceable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The article is clearly sourceable" — so source it, please. Because I can't. This is neither a disambiguation page nor a proper article. To me, it looks like a WP:SYN to create an impression of a continuing, hundred-year long war (compare {{Campaignbox Sinhalese–Portuguese War}}, which should also be deleted), when it was in fact a series of very loosely connected uprisings and battles. This book [34] actually synthesizes the situation much more accurately: "Then, as now, Ceylon was divided into two religious spheres, Sinhalese-Buddhist in the north and center, and Tamil-Hindu in the south. It was divided among a number of kingdoms and vassal states. These internal divisions helped perpetuate cleavages which outside powers were able to turn to their own profit. [...]". Even this newspaper article [35] used as source in one of articles is titled "Episodes of colonised history", and does not use "war" phrasing whatsoever.
Merge into Portuguese Ceylon, which is now a stub, but has much better potential to describe the complex situation of the time than this WP:COATRACKy/WP:SYN posing as a dab page. No such user (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand into an article, or format as a "List of events of the ..." and add sources. It's not a dab page. The term has been a link since July 2010 in Battle of Gannoruwa: has it been a red link all this time, or was there a previous deleted article, or is there a hyphen/dash problem? I looked at this article, half-expecting to see that the creator of the new dab page had also added the term recently to all three articles - it happens - so was reassured to find that this was not the case. It's been linked in Siege of Kotte (1557–58) since the article's creation in 2012, and in the third article this 2010 edit (same editor as above) changed a link from Sri Lankan–Portuguese War (which they'd added in 2009) to this one. I'm not sure what that all shows, but I do wonder if there's more of a history to this article/dab page than is apparent to a non-admin. PamD 15:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification needed: was there one "war", or three? If there was only one, this page has no business being tagged as a "disambiguation" page, since it covers a single topic. You wouldn't expect a Wikipedia page entitled "World War I" to be a disambiguation page saying that the term might refer to any of 175 different battles, as opposed to an overview of the entire war. If there were three separate wars, why aren't there articles about any of them? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Can any of the keep voters please offer a proof that there was a war in the first place? So far, I've seen only an assertion that sources exist by Altenmann (accompanied by a WP:ITSUSEFUL), one "keep by Altenmann", and one rather honest "I don't know" by Pam. Clicking on google search for the term, above, comes completely fruitless. "It was a red link" is hardly an argument. No such user (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was 'a' war (of aggression, as you may guess), which I found by a simple google book search anyone can do. - Altenmann >t 16:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Link? The Banner talk 20:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have been overlooking much of these articles over the years, to clarify the article would refer to the collective battles and conflicts between the Sinhalese and the Portuguese Empire.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep although the article needs improvement, the reason given for deletion was not appropriately policy based. The article was no longer marked as a disambiguation page at the time the Afd request was made. If you would like to see sources, take a look at the Battle of Gannoruwa article, for example. Or take a look at The fatal history of Portuguese Ceylon; transition to Dutch rule by George D Winius. --Bejnar (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per article creator, has much potential to become a C class article very quickly, heaps of sources and refs to be found, see bibliography of Siege of Galle (1640) and refs in Battle of Gannoruwa.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:42, 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 delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portaleditions[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 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) 00:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability.- Altenmann >t 05:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs, nothing on google apart from a foreign language website. Szzuk (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atom Publishing[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 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) 00:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability. single-purpose article creator; must be vanity.- Altenmann >t 05:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did find one source mentioning the firm and its founder (Marketing Week, 2001 via Highbeam (subscription reqd) but it is a passing mention and insufficient to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 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 no consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Tradition Publishing[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 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) 00:54, 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 no consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Publishing[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 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) 00:54, 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 no consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KoodibooK[edit]

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

Not notable. Advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 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) 00:52, 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.