Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 January	18 January >

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbelt (video game)[edit]

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

Article created by developer and added to by its "artist". Even this, which is cited to in the article, indicates that the game is barely releasable let alone notable. Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks to be too soon for an article at this time, especially given that it's not even released yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per toosoon and COI criterion. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 01:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to have any substantial coverage from reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found on Googling this. Ethically ^(Yours) 12:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially, per above. WP:TOOSOON to be able to pass WP:GNG. No independent sources. (For reference, IndieDB is self-published.) WP:CRYSTAL as an unreleased games. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:52, 25 January 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 Serebro. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was moved to "Dasha Shashina" while this discussion was in progress. Both titles have been redirected to Serebro. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Shashina[edit]

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

Contains no information not included in Serebro. Laun chba ller 23:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per me being the creator of the stub. All other band members has separate articles. and yes Otherstuffexists should not be used as a reason to keep but for example in this case it proves that being a member of this group is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good reason for this--the other members are or were with the group for years, but this person just joined and was previously unknown. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway more input needed from other users. Preferably those with knowledge of the group I guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serebro. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. It's possible that there are Russian sources or offline sources, but I'm not seeing anything obvious on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serebro. This 23-year-old unknown joined the group less than four months ago, long after its peak, and has no RS coverage other than in coverage of the group. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I see no notability independent of being a member of the band. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redriect The other band members have articles, but they meet notability guidelines. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per results of related AfDs and the fact that if these are deletable they need to be discussed as an entire group The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in Massachusetts[edit]

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

Disputed WP:PROD. This is basically a linkspam farm. There are almost no notable entries in this list. Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. List is nothing more than a directory and has no encyclopedic value. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Despite the article's assertion, this isn't a "historical" list at all -- it's a linkfarm for current breweries and microbreweries. A proper, sourced, non-linked list would meet requirements. This isn't it. Ravenswing 03:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Decidedly a violation of WP:Not a directory. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article starts by telling us that "In 1637, Robert Sedgewick began operation of the first brewery in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, just 17 years after the Mayflower landed in 1620." This is clearly historical material and so refutes the claims made above. The topic is the subject of at least one book: Massachusetts Breweries. This shows that the topic passes WP:LISTN and that we are not short of material with which to develop it. Our editing policy therefore applies. Andrew (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and ~~rename/merge to Beer in Massachusetts~~ per WP:PRESERVE. Prose sections in the article contain information certainly worth preserving about breweries in Massachusetts, including historical and contemporary information. That said, the directory style within the article needs to go per WP:LINKFARM, and the lists should be limited to entries that already have Wikipedia articles or at least that are verified. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would say that merging and re-naming would be fine. The problem in this case is that the non-linkspam material is all referenced to unreliable sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck part of my !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Valid navigational function. Carrite (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But remove the external links and add references from reliable sources other than the company's website. With a little work references can be found; those with no references can be removed, the remaining should notable enough to leave (with a red-link for the eventual creation of individual articles). -- Zyxw (talk)

Comment: Also see the related AFD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut (which also includes AFDs for Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, and Tennessee), plus the individual state AFDs listed below. -- Zyxw (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These lists are valid for navigation. It is not hard to add links to them. It probably takes less time to go web hunting and add links than it does to set up deletion nominations for twelve lists. I updated parts of several of these lists including List of breweries in California. It was not hard and I learned that beer brewing is one of the largest non-durable industries in the U.S. and growing at a rate of up to 20% per year. Therefore I think the entire topic is relevant. I have worked on many lists in Wiki before and never encountered this sort of situation because WP:CSC does not demand citations on each line and states that a list may contain non-notable entries. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a sub-article of List of breweries in the United States. If we wish it deleted it is that article that should be nominated with a centralised discussion. Having 50 separate discussions is hopeless and risks contradictory decisions. Lists with non-notable entries are permitted per WP:CSC. Spinning Spark 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The linkfarm aspect is unpleasant but it is not a valid reason for AFD. Linkfarms can be removed without deleting the article. Spinning Spark 19:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CSC. Also, I agree with Zyxw that the external links should be removed and the list need to be updated with references. The problems with this list are fixable through cleanup and development. - tucoxn\^talk 21:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Removing NN breweries is for normal editing, not AfD. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per results of related AfDs and the fact that if these are deletable they need to be discussed as an entire group The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in Oklahoma[edit]

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

Disputed WP:PROD. This is basically a linkspam farm. There are almost no notable entries in this list. Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and rename/merge to Beer in Oklahoma~~ per WP:PRESERVE. Prose sections in the article contain information worth preserving, and the topic Beer in Oklahoma is certainly expandable. However, the directory style within the article needs to go per WP:LINKFARM, and list entries should be limited to entries that already have Wikipedia articles or at least that are verified. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would think that merging/renaming would be fine. The problem in this case is that there is no worthwhile content to merge. The list is a bunch of linkspam and the opening paragraph is only cited to unreliable sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck part of my !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Valid navigational function. Encyclopedic topic. The green links need to disappear from the body of the piece. Carrite (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most definitely linkspam; no way to merge to Beer in OK either BlueSalix (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely linkspam.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But remove the external links and add references from reliable sources other than the company's website. With a little work references can be found; those with no references can be removed, the remaining should notable enough to leave (with a red-link for the eventual creation of individual articles). -- Zyxw (talk)

Comment: Also see the related AFD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut (which also includes AFDs for Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, and Tennessee), plus the individual state AFDs listed below. -- Zyxw (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CSC, lists do not need to contain only notable entries. These lists are valid for navigation, although consensus may end up renaming or shaping them differently at some point in the future, it is not hard to add links to them now. There are a plethora of books and articles about beers. I updated parts of several of these lists including List of breweries in California. It was not hard and I learned that beer brewing is one of the largest non-durable industries in the U.S. and growing at a rate of up to 20% per year. Therefore I think the entire topic is relevant. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a sub-article of List of breweries in the United States. If we wish it deleted it is that article that should be nominated with a centralised discussion. Having 50 separate discussions is hopeless and risks contradictory decisions. Lists with non-notable entries are permitted per WP:CSC. Spinning Spark 19:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CSC. Also, I agree with Zyxw that the external links should be removed and the list need to be updated with references. The problems with this list are fixable through cleanup and development. - tucoxn\^talk 21:06, 21 January 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. The nomination has been countered with sources presented in the discussion and those added to the article after the nomination for deletion. Additionally, the delete !vote by User:Spanneraol is not policy- or guideline-based, nor is the keep !vote by User:Morriswa. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still We Believe: The Boston Red Sox Movie[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. All I found on Google as far as WP:RS go is this, and nothing else, suggesting a lack of significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found lots of references:
"Believers will love Red Sox movie". Telegram & Gazette. May 8, 2004.
"Sox film will win you over". Boston Herald. May 7, 2004.
"Souls of Sox fans knitted into 'Still We Believe'". Daily Hampshire Gazette. May 27, 2004.
"'Still, We Believe' more about fans". Cape Cod Times. May 7, 2004.

and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important documtary covering the 2003 and 2004 postseasons of the Boston Red Sox. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. Films like this are put together for every championship team... it does not need an article and it certainly is not "important."Spanneraol (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been the focus of multiple in-depth reviews and coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 20 January 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 G7 - author requested (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Street of the Four Winds[edit]

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

Don't think this short story is notable. It should be part of the article on the collection The King in Yellow Op47 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the page is that it is far too short, but so is my description of Demoiselle d'Ys. I suggest you only delete on the grounds of inadequate description, not on the grounds that the story is not one of the weird ones. It is poetically macabre and has significant French writers behind it such as Gautier and Nodier. Several critics have singled it out as a fine one from the latter half of the book. The whole book is noteworthy and at present Wikipedia only takes the Lovecraft reader's point of view. Whitespeck (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS - How does one delete a page? My description of Charles Nodier's La Fee aux Miettes using just the symbolism doesn't work and I think that this page should be deleted, but I don't know how to do this. I put it up. Whitespeck (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you are the creator and only substantial contributor to an article, you can request that it be speedily deleted by placing a {{db-author}} tag in the first line, preferably including an explanatory note in the edit summary. If you think that someone else might want to rescue the article (especially if they have made non-trivial changes already), you can follow the proposed deletion process instead. Hqb (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The King in Yellow. It's not clear that there is a good case for independent notability, anyway, and readers are better served by incorporating the small amount of material here into the main article. Would similarly suggest merging The Demoiselle d'Ys, which would be fine to do without an Afd. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added descriptions to the stories on the main article and removed the link to this story. I would be interested in comments, criticisms, etc. Whitespeck (talk) 21:02, 20 January 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)} 11:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Sood[edit]

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

Article relies on primary sources or non notable sources. Article seems to promote subject than an encyclopedic content. Itsalleasy (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure why you say this? The article is covered with reliable sources. The man addressed to General Assembly of the UN and is a global health expert cited worldwide, all covered in references. --BiH (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the notability. The reliable sources only mention him in passing; the more detailed mentions are more in line with college yearbook bios, or are promotional in nature. It's not quite clear from the opening sentence what it is he does, or is notable for. The opening sentence appears to be asserting his notability rather than proving it: "a known global health expert" - known to whom? A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. He appears to be an academic involved in some student publications, and has assisted in some conferences. I'm not seeing anything significant. The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article - and it was created by a single purpose account. I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The man addressed to General Assembly of the UN (official UN document: [1]) and is a global expert on sustainable development cited worldwide (mentions in serveral books: [2] ; mentioned in various papers: [3]). Recently, he curated TEDxUNPlaza event, hosted by the UN. All of this is covered in references. In my opinion, nominating the article for deletion was an act of bad intention (not to mention is was not done properly by the nominator, so I did not take it seriously). --BiH (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete I agree with SilkTork's analysis. As for the arguments given just above by BiH: addressing the UN only makes someone notable if this address was noted (i.e., written about) by independent reliable sources. The book references are nothing substantial (an acknowledgement, for example; the first book that pops up may or may not refer to this person). The Google Scholar results are very revealing: several publications pop up. None of the publications by Kunal Sood seem to have been cited even a single time. To pass WP:ACADEMIC#1, one generally needs a thousand citations or so. In short, no indication that this passes WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. As an aside, please refrain from personal attacks on the nom. That the nom had some technical problems is not too surprising as the process is not easy (advice: use Twinkle) and in any case, that has been remedied and is completely irrelevant to this discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The low-quality sources with which the article is padded are not good enough for WP:GNG and I did not find better ones elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple passing mentions do not somehow eventually total up to substantive coverage. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 22:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 04:07, 18 January 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. Most of the keep !votes that are not socks appear to be confusing this person with Mark Burnett (executive producer) of Survivor, who is undoubtedly notable. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burnett (producer)[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)

Director is non-notable thus far; has only directed one film (not to be confused with Sleeper (2009 film)), which also appears not to be notable so far. Local newspaper source helpfully notes local boy starting out on his career. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a producer who just so happenes to also have director and writer credits. He has more notability than many articles i have seen on wiki. If you dont know who he is then you are not quallified to review on this topic.Makro (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He is well know in the industry and has worked on many TV sets.90.214.105.156 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Katie Jarvis Danny Lloyd Klinton Spilsbury Carrie Henn (actress) Robert Arkins. All these are as equal in their natability and they all have articles. If they quallify then so does Mark Burnett (producer).Makro (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I can't find anything about his one film, Sleeper, other than its IMDb entry - which helpfully notes that the film had a £1,000 (!) budget. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The budget on IMDB states £10,000 not £1,000.Makro (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It said £1,000 when Korny left their comment, but it does not matter. It would not matter if some anonymous IMDB user entered _£10 trillon_ as the budget--IMDB is not a reliable source and so is worthless for notability discussions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Has an IMDB page. Has references. Just because you havent heard of hime doesnt mean he isn't notable. @user:korny. Many films have had low budgets, you cant judge on that one factor.Js46358 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck blocked sockpuppet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there have been some notable films with low budgets, but I thought the budget of this one shed some light on the type of project he's been involved with so far. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as making no case for notability (A7) and possible hoax (G3). I've found no RS evidencing that this subject even exists. [Note: This person is not Mark Burnett (executive producer) of Survivor fame.] Sources provided are to purported subject's purported website, a user-generated IMDB page, and two Wakefield Express cites that don't seem to exist. There is no claim that the one extant film was ever released and no reliable sources to suggest that it was ever made. Considering how small a body of work is listed, I suppose it is possible that the subject had time to pick up a Cambridge astrophysics doctorate, although it is wholly unsubstantiated. But, even if this article were true in all its particulars, there is nothing to suggest that subject is anywhere close to being notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Notability is made clear. Has an IMDB page that proves his notability. DSmith2014 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck blocked sockpuppet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've kept my multitude of complaints regarding Articles for creation to myself thus far. This is a good poster child for those concerns. This article was thrown out onto the encyclopedia through that process with no regard for how disruptive it would (and has) become. Without spending a whole lot of time, it's pretty easy to figure out that the other Mark Burnett is the primary topic for not only "Mark Burnett" but also "Mark Burnett (producer)". Instead, that article has been relegated to a rather hideous disambiguation title, to say the least. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that this article came through AfC, and I looked up the approving editor with the idea of offering some advice. But it was actually the article creator who moved it from AfC to mainspace. For any of its faults, AfC is voluntary, so I don't think it can be blamed for this one. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concern Two editors both voting keep with similar wording have come here for their first ever WP edits, User:DSmith2014 and User:Js46358. I find this quite worrying. Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability. IMDB is not a reliable source. I can find no evidence for the existence of teh film or this producer. That's not to say that they don't exist, but rather, the coverage is so slight that even unreliable sources are sparse. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Notablity is confirmed. As user:makro satates, there are many other bio pages that contain less information that stay on wikipedia.Paddyallen (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck blocked sockpuppet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see so many people creating accounts just to express support for keeping this article! And all with such similar writing styles, too... I hope you all continue to contribute to Wikipedia. For this particular argument, though, see WP:OTHERSTUFF, as noted above. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is very familiar to me - I nominated Mark Burnett (Producer) for speedy deletion in November and subsequently nominated its recreation, Mark Burnett (producer) for deletion in December. This is the third creation of this article! Burnett is, to be charitable, not notable yet, considering he is very young and has an entire career ahead of him. There's no evidence his one film is notable and little evidence of news coverage about him, apart from two possible entries in his local newspaper. I would recommend the article is salted too, preventing further re-creations. Sionk (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No evidence of notability and someone and their socks are trying just to hard to keep what is essentially a vanity page. If they can't aspire to their own proper web site then Wikipedia is certainly not their web host either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 25 January 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) 05:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mallikarjun Bande[edit]

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

I know he is deceased but WP:BLP1E applies here. No significant coverage, and nothing about anything other than his death. Giant Snowman 20:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:NOTNEWS. Gryllida 10:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is widely discussed in Karnataka, India. CBI enquiry is demanded by wife of the police officer in view of his deployment to that particular duty by his higher officers. Needs copy edit/clean up. - Rayabhari (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Reasons being IGP to whom the PSI was reporting has been transferred from Gulbarga due to public outrage and demand from the deceased's wife. At this moment yes there are no enough points to put on his life , but going forward as and when the enquiry gets started new information may come out.

Also if required page name can be renamed to "Death of mallikarjun bande". But i personally feel that page should not be deleted. [[User:|Prajwalkumarmn]] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Bande was a brave cop who died in the fierce encounter with Munna, a sharp shooter and active criminal with alleged nexus with underworld. Also, bande was credited for his crack down on rowdy sheeters for which it is reported that he was transferred to Crime Branch. His death has now sparked intense Socio-political and security debate in Karnataka. Government of Karnataka has even ordered for a thorough investigation into his death by the CID. Who Knows?? the outcome might act as a new milestone for future police reforms in India.-- ~ Irrigator^talk 05:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of source coverage on this deceased individual. — Cirt (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage, sources. alot of notability indications.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 23 January 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 Family Kingdom Amusement Park. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splashes Oceanfront Water Park[edit]

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

Not a single worthwhile ref supports this article. Own website and paid for advertising seems to be the total extent of it. Nothing robust or reliable except to confirm that it exists and that local residents care about the Swash. 100% advertising Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If not independently notable, it could be merged into Family Kingdom Amusement Park. It seems to be somewhat merged with that more famous attraction on its website [4].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Family Kingdom Amusement Park. They are the same company. No compelling reason to split and both will be stronger (more notable) in a single article. -- GreenC 20:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If not independently notable for a standalone article, selective Merge to Family Kingdom Amusement Park, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of historic site and longstanding water park located on it. No opposition to a merge discussion on the talk page of relevant articles. Not sure that this isn't independently notable, but it's certainly worth including in the encyclopedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boston bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. 2024 Olympic bids don't go in until next summer. The page contains nothing but purely speculative material about a bid that may not even make it as far as the application stage. See similar AFDs for Guadalajara, Paris, Budapest, Saint Petersburg. Kahastok talk 17:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and other AfDs (don't forget Toronto!). Ansh6 6 6 19:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. (Besides, in all likelihood, the DCU Center and MassMutual Center would not be considered by any realistic bid committee. Using past Olympic plans as a gauge, Worcester and Springfield are too far from Boston for any non-football, non-sailing event to take place. In my opinion, this goes past speculative and probably into unreasonable.) Tklalmighty (talk) 07:50, 20 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn & Co (bar)[edit]

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

Seems like advertised page just to promote the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Mr RD 17:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've just blocked the article creator as being a spam-only account and deleted most of the spam articles they created. This article is spammy as well, and notability is not really established. Nick-D (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Too badly written to stay. If you're going to spam, up your game and at least write a decent article. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:37, 23 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Guseinov[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's clear he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. However, if all of those titles claimed in the article are true, I'd say he meets WP:MANOTE. The problem is that I can't find reliable sources for any those claims. Papaursa (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Non-notable MMA fighter and other titles aren't sourced (see WP:PROVEIT). If sources are provided then I'd change my vote. No problem with the article being saved to someone's sandbox until it's improved.Mdtemp (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Not notable for MMA and needs sources to validate other titles and meet WP:MANOTE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 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 point in letting this rumble on any more. Pretty clear that neither artist is notable (at the moment). Salted. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobonix[edit]

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

Unless I'm missing something, this artist seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO, so I recommend deletion here. Note that there is another artist with the same name, which confuses things somewhat. I'm not convinced that the other is notable though either. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT: I have discussed this in ANI where Wikipedia is not a place for trademark disputes where Wikipedia has no part to play in. Having made aware of the lack of notability, I am concerned that the article may be recreated after deletion, taking the dispute back to square one. If any Mobonix becomes notable then any user can request one via WP:RA. --Marianian^(talk) 17:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Neither version is notable and Wikipedia is not a battleground. I get the sense that this article is some sort of trophy, and Wikipedia is not that either. Recreation will only mean more disruption. Dloh cierekim 17:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have the article full-protected at the moment to stamp out the edit-war among competing versions between the two claimants to this name; see article-history for them. Feel free to propose content and RS of either one (preferably on article talkpage) if you think one is notable. I am not taking a position on the notability of either one at this time. DMacks (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification There are two competing versions for this article, and neither article is supported by significant coverage and neither subject asserts meeting WP:MUSIC. Both article creators assert some sort of legal right to the name, and are contending over the two competing versions. Please see the talk page and the discussion at AN/I for further details. Dloh cierekim 18:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither musical artists that use the name "Mobonix" meet Wikipedia's notability standards.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete - i had made a note on the talk page voicing my skepticism that either subject would meet notability criteria and that the involved parties should present third party coverage. None has been presented so far and I found nothing in searches. I am willing to be convinced otherwise by the presentation of sources such as music trade periodicals which do not appear in googlenews. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please see the updated support for notability using Wikipedia's criteria on the talk page. Please keep in mind that notability standards were met a decade ago and are difficult to gather (but I'm trying). Thanks. Illxchild (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- the only additional source of mention is the college student newspaper, which is not really something that counts in determining notability. the others, primary sources that indicate one of his songs appeared on a radio playlist are not determinative that it was actually "in rotation" to satisfy that criteria, and IMDB just verifies existence/technical credits in films, but not notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability(edit: of either artist). CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment If either or both are found to be notable or become notable, an article about that person/those persons needs to be moved to or created under their name rather than Mobonix. Dloh cierekim 22:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment It's apparent to me that this article exists for promotional purposes for one of the claimants, as he has removed the afd tag with an edit summary about not "confusing the public" and asserting his trademark. This is a single purpose account named for one of the claimants. Once again, the trademark issue is not our concern as editors. It is an off-wiki dispute,and Wikipedia is not a battleground. This claimant version is a usurpation of the original article. Wikipedia is not here to promote his trademark. Dloh cierekim 16:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. AS far as Wikipedia is concerned, neither person claiming to be Mobonix meets our notability criteria, and this isn't a platform for legal disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and per my question on WP:AN/I#User bringing real world legal dispute onto project "... put up a notice on the page that says something to the nature of "due to an ongoing legal battle over the trademark of this name, this title has been locked until said battle has concluded." and full protect the page, semi-protect the talk page ..." Technical 13 (talk) 20:31, 23 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat'ah Engineering[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is no mention of this company in Google Books or News, nor at HighBeam, Questia, Gale, or the Macmillan Reference USA or Gale Business Insights business directories. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aside from a few 1970s catalogs and newspaper ads for sale, this firm doesn't seem to exist. — Brianhe (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources provided, and most of the article is Original Research about the lives of the three founders. Neither they nor their firm are notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 21 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crosley Gracie[edit]

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

Non-notable as martial artist or MMA fighter. His connection to the Gracie name does not infer notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being a Gracie does not make a person notable and he doesn't meet any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and lacks the independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete'he fought in a major mma organization which was Pride. He was also a pancrease champ. I tend not like Gracie propoganda, but he is accomplished in his field. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meets MMA note as per Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NMMA#Mixed_martial_arts and Pride is top tier [5]CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing 3 top tier fights. Yes, PRIDE was top tier but not Pancrase. Also, I don't see any evidence supporting your claim he was a Pancrase champion. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the significance says 3 professional fights for a top tier mma organization OR Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization. So he makes it, barely, but he makes it. Pancrease is a second tier so that helps but is not a sole qualifier. [6].CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the hour is late and I must not be thinking clearly. He has only 2 top tier fights and never fought for a top tier title, so how does he meet WP:NMMA? Please tell me what I'm missing. Papaursa (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. According to: [7]

Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization. Gosh while reading this, I saw you're correct. He has 2 top tier fights for an MMA organization. I thought I saw three fights. I guess I would still put keep since K-1 Kickboxing is considered to be a top kickboxing organization in the world. Wikipedia is giving credence to k-1 for kickboxing. [8] . So 2 fights in a tier 1 organization and a k-1 event would work for me. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

add, i did make a mistake. He wasn't a pancrease champ. You were right with Gracie. I still think he is borderline notable. The 2 fights and the k-1 fight work for me. He did beat Kiuma in pancrease, while Kiuma was still holding one of the belts. Apparently Kiuma was the welterweight and middleweight champ at the same time. Kiuma lost the middleweight title a fight previous to fighting gracie, he later lost to gracie and in the next fight he defended his welterweight title. Overall, I think Gracie is a notable, barely. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found no evidence he ever kickboxed, certainly not enough to meet WP:KICK. Are you confusing his appearance at a Hero's MMA event (which was K-1's attempt to promote MMA) with a K-1 kickboxing event? Are you also aware that, according to the weights given at Sherdog, Gracie had a 27 pound advantage over Kiuma Kunioku (180 vs. 153)? That's why Gracie is listed as a light heavyweight and Kunioku as a welterweight--I'd say that makes his victory less impressive. Add in the fact that the article has no significant independent coverage of Gracie and I'll stick with my delete since he doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Papaursa (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I was going by this [9]. I saw k-1 and wasn't aware of hero's significance. That with the weight advantage in pancrease makes a difference as well. My keep can be changed to a veary weak keep. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Grimshaw[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No top tier fights and a second tier championship is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:03, 23 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bao Li Gao[edit]

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

Unsourced non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article about an MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure fighter with no sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:08, 23 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sola[edit]

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

Notability about the subject is contested. Lacks verification of alleged works with celebrities in media outlets (e.g. NBC.com). Most links with the exception of a Google book that claims Steve Sola's studio charted on Billboard lead to Wikipedia itself and can't be used as references. In my view, the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and appears to be yet another attempt at carpet-bombing with meaningless references and hoping that something sticks. Ubot16 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources do not verify notability. I did some searching around on google news archives but didn't come up with anything --CutOffTies (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found the subject's AllMusic entry and it supports the material in the article. With that said, notability criteria expects the subject to be associated with notable subjects in a significant way. The way I read it, the subject doesn't meet that criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 24 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BioScale Inc.[edit]

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

Corporate spam, reads like a press release. Probable conflict of interest. wp:g11 was declined (though I would have deleted on that basis, honestly). -- Y not? 16:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete THis artical is nothing but spam and show no proof of notability--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep. I believe it satisfies WP:ORG. Might be a WP:COI and the article needs to be edited according to WP:NPOV. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above voter is now blocked indefinitely.[10] —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per accurate nom's analysis. Blatant spam by a well-known paid editor and meatpuppet (the same who voted "weak keep" above). Cavarrone 07:14, 24 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King David's Sling[edit]

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

Non-notable thought experiment on the possibility of superluminal communication. The author of this article was able to get an article published (which he uses as the source for this Wikipedia article) in the American Journal of Modern Physics, a publication of the Science Publishing Group, which has been identified as a known predatory publisher. The concept itself is completely without merit, but even as a hoax, it is not notable in that it has received no other coverage than the author's own publication of this article in several venues. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear cut case of failing to meet WP:GNG. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete bunk written by a philosophy student who never took a basic class on special relativity. It's pure nonsense published a journal which can at best be described as having a non-existent peer review process, and at worst, who willfully publishes quackery because it makes them a quick buck on the back of authors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG also not enough content. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Fringe and User:Headbomb above. Complete bunk. I have just read the paper and cannot believe how scientifically illiterate it is.Martin451 02:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there's no way from Earth to Mars (ba dum tsss) that this passes WP:GNG; also there's so little content here that even if it did pass, I'd say it would be better just to blow it up and start over. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete; This is not a thought experiment. A thought experiment was used as a foil to expound upon the scientific method employed. The real experiment, as pictured in fig.1 of the cited article, is a real experiment based on classical physics. Glenm101 (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenm101 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether it is a thought experiment, whether the results are right or wrong, whether it is scientifically coherent or not. The issue is WP:Fringe and WP:Notability, the experiment does not have extensive WP:third-party sources talking about it, and for good reason, the author displays a complete non understanding of physics.Martin451 16:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take note; WikiDan61 has written to me the following: "By this, I assume you mean figure 1 of your paper published in the Journal of Modern Physics. That figure shows the apparatus of a rotating disk with a mounted emitter that, by the text of your paper, would be rotating at some 3.5 x 10^9 RPM in order to achieve the required faster-than-light communications. By calling this a "real experiment", you are implying that you have, in fact, built this apparatus and launched it into orbit to test the hypothesis. (Or, at the very least, built the apparatus on earth.) If this is not the case, then you have not performed a "real experiment", but only a "thought experiment"." Glenm101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wrote this note on GlenM's user talk page because I thought that the differentiation between a thought experiment an a real experiment was not germane to the discussion of the notability of this topic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regarding notability, much has been said to denigrate Science Publishing Group’s (SPG) reputation. This attack seems to be focused on Beall’s List, a list of “Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”. This is an incredibly extensive list of some five hundred publishers. As each “possible” predatory publisher is listed, I do not understand why all publishers are not listed; after all, anything is “possible”. One can only assume that those publishers who do not make this list do so by way of cronyism. Glenm101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A single (or several) published paper(s) are not enough for a wikipedia article, even if they appear in Physical Review Letters or Nature. What is needed is many other sources talking about the idea in a meaningful way. Wikipedia is not here to publish wp:original research, or promote individual scientific papers.Martin451 16:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is clear you people have work to do.--Glenm101 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What work would that be? The burden of proof is upon the author. If you can show that this paper has received significant attention -- that it has been extensively cited or itself the subject of independent articles -- then there might be a chance of keeping the article. Otherwise, not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Entirely non-notable fringe WP:OR, sourced by a single paper that wouldn't pass any kind of peer review. After reading it, I have to say that User:Martin451 nailed it with "cannot believe how scientifically illiterate it is". Kolbasz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio from the linked pseudo-paper, `a5b (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC) and not notable original research.`a5b (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright violation?--Glenm101 (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No copyright violation apparent. The Science Publishing Group states on its terms and conditions page:
    4. All articles published by SciencePG on this website marked "Open Access" are licensed by the respective authors of such articles for use and distribution by SciencePG subject to citation of the original source in accordance with the Open Access license.

Still not notable, but at least not a copyright violation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open Access is not CC-BY-SA or compatible. It states only about "distribution by SciencePG", not about distribution by third parties.`a5b (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that SPG leaves the copyright ownership with the original author, with SPG having a license to publish from the author. The distinction is moot however; we either delete because of copyvio or because of notability. In either case, we delete. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - In case there is any confusion regarding copyright, I do believe copyright rests with me as I am the corresponding author of the journal article.--Glenm101 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, all that should be needed to fix potential copyright issues is quotation marks and attribution. Quoting portions (in this case: a single line) of abstracts is textbook fair use. Kolbasz (talk) 16:10, 22 January 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) buff bills 7701 19:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umesh Kamat[edit]

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

Biography with sources that merely mention the subject. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 15:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, satisfies WP:ENT. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It appears to like the actor has had significant roles in multiple notable films thereby satisfying WP:ENT. However the sources pretty much just mention the name, they are not even about subject. It should probably be noted that 3/4 of the sources are the same source, The Times of India. Not much else can be found about him on Google. --CyberXRef^talk 17:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for lengthy filmography list and plenty coverage. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:12, 24 January 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) 05:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia–Malaysia relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. There does not seem anything to this relationship except one meeting of foreign ministers. There is a lot of want to co operate more and more tourism statements but no evidence of actual trade, tourism or agreements. Most of the sources supplied are the foreign ministry website which can be considered a primary source. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can't see how it fails WP:GNG. To keep the page, GNG mentions the subject needs to be notable, not whether in real life any steps have been taken on the subject or not. The page definitely needs expansion. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)— Rafaelgriffin (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Mr RD (talk • contribs). [reply]

most of the sources are primary. There is a lack of third party sources. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep per north Pass a Method talk 18:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I hate these "A Relations With B" articles. I hate the challenges of these articles. So it goes... Sufficient sources showing in the piece to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , obvious WP:GNG. That a bilateral relationship is notable depends on sources coverage, not on arbitrary standards on the amount of such relationships. --cyclopia ^speak! 00:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and most of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To those arguing WP:GNG is met. besides Latvian government primary sources, there are only 3 third party sources provided. the Argophilia source actually lifts its content direct from the other new straits times source. that leaves us 2 third party sources. A search of Malaysia's largest English newspaper, New Straits Times, only yields the one article about wooing tourists [11]. other than that, New Straits Times talks about supermarket collapses in Latvia and Latvia entering the euro zone. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also searched Latvia's biggest newspaper and it seems to cover mainly sporting results in Malaysia [12]. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As there also an articles with less reference or no reference → (1, 2). I wonder why these articles never been nominated for deletion. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ^ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you have provided no reason why this article is notable. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per @Rafaelgriffin. The article just needs a rewrite. Pikolas (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the consensus from past AfDs is to keep bilateral articles with at least a few good sources about significant trade between two countries. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no significant trade and no sources to establish it. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 21 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver contest[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a contest or initiative. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. - Mr X 15:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and the article fails WP:GNG--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like said above fails WP:GNG. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an incomprehensible word salad. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. This is a large computer and informatics contest for young folk. It's claimed that over 500,000 students participated last year from 27 countries. It's listed as one of the top three contests by the OCG, but I don't know if this is enough by itself for notability. For such a large contest, I've been unable to find multiple in-depth independent RS discussing it, but this could just be my incompetence at finding education-related RS. As it stand, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. If others find good RS, I'm happy to change my recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to fix this - got rid of some copyvio, etc, but couldn't find anything making it notable, hence the tag I added. I agree with Mark viking, it's too soon and not yet notable enough. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 22 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Cirkunov[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as an MMA fighter since he has no top tier fights. None of his accomplishments are sourced by anything other than a link to his web page and the article has no independent sources. Most of his accomplishments were as a junior and that doesn't add to his notability. One opening round loss at the 2007 ADCC tournament is not enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Judoinside.com shows his successes as a junior.Mdtemp (talk) 19:08, 23 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Combs[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - did manage one top tier fight but that was over a year ago and a loss. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and his wrestling record is not enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Mdtemp (talk) 19:02, 23 January 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. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Crane[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter or martial artist. Managed two top tier fights several years ago but both were losses. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although he's one top tier fight short of meeting WP:NMMA, I think his 3rd place finish at the 2002 IBJJF world championships makes up for that. Most of his BJJ successes were achieved as an underbelt and therefore don't meet WP:MANOTE, but his 2002 Mundial performance was as a black belt. Papaursa (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep One bronze medal may not be quite enough to meet WP:MANOTE, but combined with his MMA, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.Mdtemp (talk) 19:00, 23 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Devane[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Looks like some success at amateur level but that really doesn't count towards notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The claims of notability are weak and even those are not supported. Running his own schools is obviously not notable, WUMA is basically a British Isles organization that was deemed minor in previous discussions (a second place finish at the WUMA "world" championships was deemed not notable), and the 100 man kumite has also been previously deemed insufficient for notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Jarvis (karateka)). Papaursa (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has some tournament history but not enough in my opinion. WUMA is quite minor organization. jni (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buugeng[edit]

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

Non-notable prop. This was categorized under martial arts equipment which makes it even less notable. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This theatrical prop has nothing to do with martial arts. Not notable item. jni (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely zero notability. Safiel (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has nothing to do with martial arts and lacks the independent coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:57, 23 January 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 under WP:CSD#G4 as it was recently deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikkah Shalit. Number 5 7 22:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Shalit[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS. Too soon to tell whether deserves article. TheLongTone (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah (riding toy)[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can see nothing other than trivial fansite stuff.TheLongTone (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the current text is incoherent fancruft with minimal sourcing. If somebody ever finds reliable sources (probably offline) that cover this in depth, I wouldn't be averse to a new article, but the current one has got to go. bobrayner (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 20 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Phillips (producer)[edit]

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

I can't find much about him. His biggest claim to "fame" is that he has his own production company and that he produced My Ghost Story. He has other production credits, apparently, but being a producer, in and of itself, is not sufficiently notable to justify an article. If others find reliable sources (the article has no sources but IMDb) demonstrating notability, great. Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently there are no reliable sources in the article. It's been harder for producers to pass WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE than actors or directors, See WP:OUTCOMES, WP:CCC, and WP:GNG also. I'd like to continue to keep up my reputation as an inclusionist, but I can't fight every fight at AfD. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bearian sums it up; producing a low-tier reality series on a low-tier cable network generally doesn't do much for notability of a person we never see on-screen and whose producing isn't generally better than anyone else, and the TV Guide Network claim is very, very tenuous (What's On was pretty much a 'night in TV' summary even a low-paid PA could do). Nate • (chatter) 15:08, 17 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Underwood International College[edit]

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

Advertising and corporate promo based on corporate sources. Author keeps restoring info The Banner talk 23:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't see what makes this different from most of other for-profit/private educational institutions, which are generally notable. Per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Notability: "In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia." Just tag the article with peacock, advert or such templates, and if the author keeps removing them and refuse to engage in discussion, block him. If there's any reply to me here please echo me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified tertiary colleges are notable by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Schools seem to be a special exception on "Every article is judged on it own merits". The Banner talk 13:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, degree-awarding colleges are also invariably kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Often based on Common Outcomes, not always on proven notability. The Banner talk 15:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, based on precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really a consensus. You guys just shout louder and have admins on your side. The Banner talk 18:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Funny, I always think the editors who shout loudest in this debate are the "schools aren't notable" mob! And as for admins, what a load of drivel. What earthly difference does it make whether we're admins? This, I find, is the standard response of the minority who don't like the fact that they're not the majority. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 17 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metfem2d[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 18:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any independent references for this software at Google, GBooks, or GScholar. --Mark viking (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking independent references. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:58, 17 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halina (film)[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a non-notable film. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy if someone desires to do so. I have to say that the lack of sourcing is more because this film hasn't actually released yet from what I can see. I noted that it would be showing at the DC Independent Film Festival next month, so it may get coverage then. If/when it does, we can always re-create it at that point in time. I have no problem with someone userfying the data, although I would recommend that the original editor have someone look over the article first as I believe that they have a COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:58, 17 January 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) 05:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial F.C.[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Did prod, was removed with 'as a pioneering gteam,. perhaps it is notable -- would need a discussion.' Has been tagged for notability for several years, so perhaps it can be established one way or another in this discussion. Boleyn (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What would document notability?--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played in the national cup, a traditional benchmark at WP:FOOTY for club notability. Giant Snowman 18:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – evidence has been provided to demonstrate notability. C 679 12:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GS. Fenix down (talk) 14:08, 23 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Liberators Drum and Bugles Corps[edit]

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

Ridiculous tag-bombing apart, this article, created in 2006, still fails to meet the most elementary criteria for inclusion under WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artical is very badly written and needs sources to prove notability and to me it seems the best option is to nuke it and start over.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete If they performed at a DCI competition (as the article states), I would say that makes them notable--that being said--if no sources can be found to be able to rewrite a well-sourced article, then this article cannot be kept. Judging by the article's age and its inability of be improved within this time, it doesn't seem to be notable enough for a proper article to be established. I feel like a tourist (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 17 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veljo Pecan[edit]

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

Unsourced, not notable, probably fictional person. Jingiby (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shows no proof of notability and is unsourced.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not a fictional person. [13]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Found the same reference and it troubles me a bit. The book noted above is published by Princeton University Press. The mention in the book states "In the Ilinden Uprising in KruSovo," he wrote, "only one of the Mijaci took part — Veljo Pecan." as if it is obvious to the reader who this person would be. Yet I cannot find anything else os substance. Is there perhaps an alternate transliteration of the name that we are missing?. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I tried to find something in Bulgarian or Macedonian, but I didn't. Jingiby (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've looked some more, and despite my concern noted above, ultimately, we need to have reliable sourcing which appears to be completely absent at this point. I will happily change my !vote if we can find sourcing to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 22 January 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. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Allegra[edit]

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

It appears to be too soon for Wikipedia to have an article about this photographer. Whilst her work has been featured in a number of publications, very little has been written about her, and nothing at all in reliable sources. She may well meet the appropriate notability criteria one day, but that day isn't today. Please see the article's talkpage for an ongoing discussion of sources. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. What's currently an (or the?) apparent highlight within the article is Her work has been featured on the website of Vogue Italia (my emphasis), with a reference to vogue.it. But look at the reference -- {{cite web|url=http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profilo/79d652d7-f94e-4be8-b1ee-a51d20ef3f2e/User/// |title=Vogue Italia - Profilo Sarah Allegra |publisher= vogue.it|date= |accessdate=2014-01-04}} -- and one sees that the URL includes the string "User". What can all this about? PhotoVogue's "How does it work" (linked from that page; and conveniently for many of us, in English) explains. Creating and building such a page doesn't sound difficult. True, the "How does it work" page does say that of all the photos so uploaded, The best ones will be shown on a daily basis on PhotoVogue’s home page and the best three will be also published in the magazine. Now, this might qualify as "be featured" as I understand the verb feature, but the WP article doesn't suggest that this has happened for the biographee. ¶ The arts world has tens of thousands of "emerging" artists. Some will emerge, some will not; before they emerge, Wikipedia articles such as this (and there are too many) that depend on grandiose descriptions of commendable but minor achievements are minimally informative, risk embarrassing debunkings, and really are of no help to the biographees. -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per proposer and Hoary. Admiral Caius (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 17 January 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. A Google search indicates that this is a relatively widely used term that has also been used in books about this subculture, e.g. [14]. On a notability basis, there might be a case for an article. However, the article makes claims about it being a psychological state and its supposed physiological basis. Such content requires sources that meet the verifiability requirements of WP:MEDRS, which are not present in the article currently. From a verifiability point of view, the consensus to delete as emerging from this discussion has therefore a valid basis in policy. This article may be userfied if anybody wants to try to improve the sourcing, which would be required before recreating the article. Sandstein 10:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subspace (BDSM)[edit]

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

Article has never had reliable sources. Survived an AFD more than three years ago with the claim that actual sources exist, and yet it still lacks anything like good source. I don't care if some editors seem to think it is some real and significant thing, it needs multiple reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage to have an article here. More than enough time to improve it has been given. Right now there's nothing here worth saving, and, worse than that, looks like it's in full on woo territory and should not remain per WP:FRINGE DreamGuy (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BDSM or Delete. I agree with the nom. This really, really needs some strong sourcing to survive, as the insinuation that BDSM can stimulate a higher level of consciousness (or whatever it's trying to state) seems very WP:FRINGEy, and the medical aspects are completely unsupported by any citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens, if not hundreds of references for this topic. Every reliable reference book on BDSM makes reference to subspace. My time constraints limit my ability to add such references. Suggested sources include: Screw The Roses, Give Me The Thorns; So You Want To Be Kinky; So You Want To Be Kinkier; SM 101; The New Bottoming Book; The New Topping Book; Different Loving; etc.

The references exist and are readily available. The only issue is someone finding the time to add them.

The suggestion that this article is woo stuff is nonsense. It's the kind of reaction that comes up when people attempt to address articles on topics for which they lack adequate knowledge to properly understand them. Anyone who has solid knowledge of alternative sexuality is aware of the reality of subspace. Anyone qualified to review this article objectively would add citations, rather than suggest deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDNRopemaster (talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until "Anyone who has solid knowledge of alternative sexuality..." actually adds as least one of these supposed "hundreds" of WP:RS, it is "objective" to look at this article and see that it has only the merest passing acquaintance with notability. Right now, unfortunately, a personal essay on a BDSM website, a scattering of citation needed tags, and a plethora of pseudo-medical terminology don't add up to a notable concept. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially unsourced dictionary definition of a neologism or esoteric hobbyist phrase. Carrite (talk) 21:37, 19 January 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 as now clearly meeting WP:GNG. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton High Street[edit]

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

I am not finding published secondary sources to indicate that this rather ordinary suburban high street is notable for a standalone article. Charles (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a major filming hub in south London.--Laun chba ller 10:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are at least two books about this topic: Sutton High Street: A Study of Pedestrianisation (1980) and No Small Change: 100 Years of Sutton High Street (1983). The topic is therefore notable. Andrew (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only as the primary street in Sutton, but the the subject of two books. Most likely more coverage from other sources.--Oakshade (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson above. The entire Busses section is unreadable-at-any-speed crufty garbage and needs to go away. Carrite (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's mentioned in 2 books, And totally agree with Carrite -The bus bollox has got to go!

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is - it's all sourced - but reworked into a list format and all 'via's removed. Better?--Laun chba ller 23:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was nothing but a huge mess hence the comment?, Anyway it's much better .... I'd even say it's readable!.. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually worse because Wikipedia should be mostly written in prose. It has to go anyway per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is quite unacceptable cruft.--Charles (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I own two further books about Sutton, both of which cover the High Street in some detail: "Sutton - Past and Present" by Sara Goodwins ISBN 0-7509-3424-7 and "Sutton" by Jane E. M. Jones ISBN 1-84588-324-1. They contain more than enough info from which a short history could readily be produced for this article to complement the current and future sections it contains now - I would be happy to take on this small task. User:A P Monblat —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History section now written and added in. I am pleased with it (even if I say so myself!), but may yet polish it a little and/or add a bit to it.User:A P Monblat —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have put three citations at the end of the section but for verification we need to know which parts of the text are supported by which source. Otherwise it is synthesis. You may find WP:Citing sources helpful.--Charles (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have aligned the citations with the specific parts of the text that they support. Hope this is OK now.--A P Monblat (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work.--Charles (talk) 09:54, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Boyd (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played his career in NCAA Div III and the low minors. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was not able to find any evidence of notability on this player through sources so fails GNG. Also does not meet NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn player. Reso lute 01:15, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Olson[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn player. Reso lute 01:11, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Anderson (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search produced no sources for this player that would meet GNG. Also fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn player, WP:BLP1E. Reso lute 01:14, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Baird[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom, fails NHOCKEY and GNG, I can find only coverage regarding a landscaping accident and his death. ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 02:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COuldn't find any sources to meet GNG and fails to meet NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. nn player, fails GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Reso lute 01:06, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Fistric[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn player. Reso lute 01:06, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Fennig[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Ravenswing 09:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any sources to meet GNG and he fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn player. Reso lute 01:09, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Tkachuk[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COuldn't find any sources in a search to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN player. Reso lute 01:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really want to make "this is so random" a thing, but this is so random. Canada Hky (talk) 13:36, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Loewen[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search turned up no sources to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn player. Fails NHOCKEY, not seeing much of anything to recommend a GNG pass. Reso lute 01:04, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dudas[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that meets GNG found in a search and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn player. Reso lute 01:04, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Gulash[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found to meet GNG and he fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn player. Trivial mentions and a blog story. Reso lute 00:58, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Law (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search didn't turn up any good sources and he fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn player. Reso lute 00:56, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Smith (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search turned up no sources and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. NN player. Reso lute 00:55, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Martin[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator. Ravenswing 09:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search did not turn up sources to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nn former player. Reso lute 00:53, 22 January 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. Ged UK 13:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Chaytors[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator. Ravenswing 09:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search turned up no sources to meet GNG and does not meet NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. A few trivial mentions, but fails GNG/NHOCKEY. Reso lute 00:52, 22 January 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. Ged UK 14:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Jean[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator. Ravenswing 09:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search turned up no sources to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG and NHOCKEY. Reso lute 00:50, 22 January 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. Ged UK 13:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Shulo[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler, as of yet (see WP:CRYSTAL as they've only been signed to a development deal. Not enough sources, so also a WP:BLP issue ES &L 09:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NOW. No notable wrestler. To sign a WWE Develoment contract isn't enought. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference is a site which gathers whatever it can on absolutely anybody who has ever laced their own boots (even many who work in running shoes). Nothing wrong with a site like that, but it doesn't show notability. The artice itself doesn't claim a single accomplishment, let alone a notable one. There's one show the IWC promoted, one guy some fans bid farewell, and one signing WWE made. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that one reference doesn't even link to his profile, just the front page. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence at all of notability. The full, complete, unabridged content about him on the one website which is given as a source is "Logan Shulo Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA". That is absolutely all. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 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. Ged UK 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Haidari[edit]

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

"Ashraf Haidari is the Deputy Chief of Mission (Minister Counselor) of the Embassy of Afghanistan in New Delhi, India. From June 2011 to July 2012". vanity bio speedy deleted as spam in January 2012. The {{notability}} tag has been on the article since April 2013, and I tend to agree that the onus must be on the author, a WP:SPA and possible WP:COI account, to indicate that this deputy chief of mission is a notable position and would qualify for a WP article. He has penned a number of articles, including a letter to the NYT, and the SPA has been keen to include them all in the biography. But I see no sources available that could be cited to demonstrate his notability. Ohc ^¡digame! 07:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first I thought there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. According to this source: "The life and achievements of Mr. Haidari have been publicly recognized and featured in the following publications: The Journal Review (December 2008), Indiana Daily Student (August 2007), The Washington Diplomat (January 2007), The Wabash Magazine (Fall 2005), The Georgetown University Office of Alumni & University Relations Newsletter (August 2002), The Wabash Magazine (Summer 2001), and The Bachelor (October 1998)." However most of these are publications from schools Haidari attended or is associated with. Only The Washington Diplomat looks independent (not sure what "The Bachelor" is). All the other sources are by Haidari, not about, so they can't be used for determining notability. The awards are great but again, most appear to be school related. Will change position if other evidence presented. -- GreenC 07:03, 22 January 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 Plaxton. Ged UK 13:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plaxton Pronto[edit]

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

Very small article with limited content, Other than 3 images I've found nothing to say the bus even exists, So I suggest a redirect to Plaxton as such. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 06:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The bus does appear to exist but there seems to be no significant information on it other than that it is a variant of the Mercedes Sprinter, and what little exists appears on a few commercial hire web sites. Acabashi (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect a paragraph or two to Plaxton#Buses. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 20 January 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. Ged UK 13:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadows (e-book)[edit]

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

New low point in article accepted from AfC

self-published eBook without any pretense to notability except 3 local newspaper articles, which ,as this case shows, are indiscriminate in what they cover on local authors. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Prod notice that was on the article before it was restored provides a good summary: "e-book with no strong claim of notability, by a first-time writer with no Wikipedia article of her own; also possible WP:COI as the article's creator has never made any other contributions to Wikipedia at all". The strongest reference is probably the Daily Record as the others are just local notice; however the Record piece is just a brief mention and I don't see it as meeting WP:NBOOK notability criteria, nor am I locating anything better. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 20 January 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. Ged UK 13:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy syndrome[edit]

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

Page created from two news hits - not reliable sources. Essentailly a neologism, or if not then a term that has not been taken up generally and appeared in secondary sources. Any relevant material can be merged to celibacy or sex life. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge - Both articles are from credible news outlets and make direct reference to the term "celibacy syndrome" and both to seem to make note that it's commonly referenced in Japanese media ('sekkusu shinai shokogun'). So some who are qualified to do so many be able to find additional sources in Japanese. Otherwise, I'm in favor of a merge as proposed by Cas Liber, as this page has been recommended for a merge at least twice before. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Observer is undoubtedly a reliable source. News.com.au is published by News Limited, a newspaper publisher, and appears to be reliable, even though it is for a less sophisticated audience. Perhaps an editor who reads Japanese can improve the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered by reliable sources, meets bare minimum notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the concept and term have been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, almost to the point of being a speedy - Although the article is mediocre at best, to claim it isn't notable is incorrect, and to claim the sources in the article are unreliable is utterly bizarre. This smashes GNG to pieces, based on [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. Now, if you wanted to argue that the term hasn't had much sustained usage, then you probably could, but there is a catastrophic lack of WP:BEFORE here; so much so that it appears that the nominator has failed WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, so the Japanese media (all these stories seem to stem from the same set of factoids/research (i.e. primary source/study)) have reified research as "celibacy syndrome" and we accept that as legitimate and notable then? Do we have an authoritative peer-reviewed secondary source that supports this? A google search got zero/zilch hits for me for the English term. To me, psychological issues such as problems with sex/intimacy sit squarely in medicine/psychology, hence my lack of accepting newspapers as reliable secondary sources on this (even if one of them is the Guardian...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be legitimate, it just has to be notable to gain an article; and it definitely is notable. There is no requirement for a "peer-reviewed" secondary source, and you know that. How can you claim you got zero hits for the English term, when I clearly provided all of those sources just from searching for the English term? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Google scholar. There is requirement if we consider it within the realms of psychology/medicine. Depends on how you look at it really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know whether this is legitimate or not, but it did receive a huge amount of press coverage in October and November of last year, and it popped up again in this just a couple of days ago. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editorial, but one that sums up my point that these surveys are about a Japanese demographics issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Demographics of Japan and Redirect (apparently they are worried in Japan about population demographics and want youngsters making more babies, even if unmarried). I suspect the editors advocating a speedy keep haven't read the sources, which amount to the press labeling Japanese "surveys" as a "syndrome". (Globalization, please.) One survey shows that Japanese college females are engaging in less sex (which would fit in the sexual abstinence article if this trend extended beyond Japan), and another survey shows that the Japanese unmarried are dating less, and then one article goes on to talk about a sex therapist. Neither of these surveys rise to the level of anything amounting to an article labeled "celibacy syndrome" just because that's what the Japanese press is calling it. It is typical for the press to sensationalize survey findings (and misreport them, which is why we have WP:MEDRS); one of the press accounts cited above is entitled "waning coed promiscuity",[20] and I recommend a read of the Time article listed above for an example of the level of discussion relative to whether we can get an article out of this. We have guidelines about how to name and formulate articles and topics, and we don't have to follow the translation of an unscientific usage of a neologism from one country. Our general notability guidelines (GNG) do not tell us how to name an article, or where the content must be placed, and there isn't sufficient content here (even if expanded to the sources) to warrant more than a mention of a Japanese trend or cultural issue in the sexual abstinence article, or dating articles if found to be a more global trend, or the Demographics of Japan article if these "surveys" are found to have any credibility in more scholarly Japanese sources. Press accounts of surveys relevant to one country do not a syndrome make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if desired. We just went through this a few days ago; "not wanting to have sex" is not a thing. News stories on the situation in Japan of men turning to anime or porn instead of girls does not make it a thing, it's just a news story. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well. For "90 percent of young women [to] say staying single is better than what they think marriage would be like"[21] is a thing-- it's called being a normal college-age woman with a brain :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not wanting to have sex is not a thing"? Citation needed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy is a thing. Invented neuroses beyond that, i.e. the product of newspaper headline writers and Dr. Phil specials, are not things. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Merge, or Re-write The sources are describing something which meets WP:GNG, but since those sources are not reliable to give information on medical issues, this article as a medical topic should be deleted. The content may belong elsewhere or this could be written to clarify that this "syndrome" is a non-medical media concept, until such time as reliable sources say otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moments or minutes before Bluerasberry commented here (mentioning the syndrome aspect among other things), I was also thinking about the "is a syndrome" text, along with the Wikilink, being problematic; this is because it makes celibacy syndrome seem like it is a mental/psychological disorder. The Syndrome article at least, however, currently states: "In recent decades, the term has been used outside medicine to refer to a combination of phenomena seen in association." That wording could be improved, including per WP:Dated. But either way, if we are going to call celibacy syndrome a syndrome, it needs to be clear that we don't mean "syndrome" in a medical sense; this should be clear no matter where the material in this article resides. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm definitely one of the people who didn't, and still does not, understand why this topic needs a Wikipedia article; in that WP:Edit summary, I stated, "Tweaks. The authoritative language, for example, is not good. However, this article should be re-redirected...as far as I'm concerned; not notable enough to be a standalone entry. The less stubs, the better, per WP:Content fork." So when Sulfurboy stated above "I'm in favor of a merge as proposed by Cas Liber, as this page has been recommended for a merge at least twice before.," he may have been referring to me as the other person who proposed a merge. Though, in that WP:Edit summary, I suggested a redirect, it is also clear that I was suggesting that the material be merged somewhere. I'm still in favor of a merge in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not a single reliable medical source given. Please read WP:MEDRS. Newspapers do not get to invent syndrome and we should definitely not promote them if they try to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good deal of coverage among secondary sources, as already noted amply, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demographics of Japan or Delete. It's misleading to present this as a medical or scientific issue without appropriate citations, but the underlying issues can be discussed as a normal part of an appropriate article (such as demographics of Japan or celibacy). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs (a lot of) work. This is not a medical syndrome but a psychosociosexual phenomenon that has been spotted as a trend in public media and will in all likelihood receive some scientific attention very soon. If there is a good merge candidate, perhaps that is a better solution. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this is where I'd disagree on status - it is so tied up in intimate psychology that we can't afford to dismiss it as outside the medical realm. Furthermore as it stands it is not a syndrome, only a statistic that some populations are engaging in relationships and sexual activity at a lower rate....and I am loth to support the media reifying this - rather than be some new "thing" there are numerous entities in psychiatry this could be ...social anxiety, generalised anxiety disorder, avoidant personality or just any number of subclinical intrapsychic issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets notability requirements. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument ion a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 24 January 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 UCL Institute of Archaeology. Sandstein 10:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Papers from the Institute of Archaeology[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. This is the in-house journal of the UCL Institute of Archaeology, making it a local publication; there are no sources with in-depth coverage in the article and nothing obvious in google web or google scholar. Merge and redirect to UCL Institute of Archaeology also a possibility. PROD declined based on abstracting, which doesn't appear to be policy based. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 03:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't think that the databases that include it are selective enough to make this qualify under WP:NJournals. It would appear to be most logical to include a few lines on the journal in the article on the institute that publishes it. --Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 20 January 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. Ged UK 13:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historic divisions of Ireland[edit]

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

Hopelessly incomplete article, partly nonsense (like the counties "Galway Town" and "Kings Offaly") The Banner talk 01:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 03:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - a total mess. Snappy (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in theory, an article with this title could be created, but not this one. Needs to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 21 January 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. Ged UK 13:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhood Toy Stores of Canada[edit]

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

Promotional article. The sources are either mere announcement or the groups own publications. Was (properly) deleted under G11 when entered into mainspace. Was tried again in AfC, and accepted there. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are clearly not independent, or do not provide substantial information about article subject. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as discussed above. Never should have been accepted; spammy and relies on unreliable sources; of highly dubious notability. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:01, 19 January 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 LifeWay Christian Resources. Ged UK 13:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Christian Stores[edit]

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

Suggest merge and redirect to the article about the company that acquired it, LifeWay Christian Resources. There are no references in the article. The only references I find discuss the purchase and not the company itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No sign of notability for having an independent page. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:02, 19 January 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) 08:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Shepherd[edit]

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

Short film produced by a non-notable person and shown, once, at a film festival of dubious notability. Available sources include a screening schedule for said festival, something written by the directory, IMDB and a mention on "Who's Dated Who".

TL;DR: unable to find reliable sources covering this. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must delete. Ironholds (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Created and maintained by three[22][23][24] WP:SPAs, and it is not notable.LM2000 (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is about a non-notable film. Only online link leads to a dead-end. EagerToddler39 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 20 January 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) 08:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skydiver Mach II[edit]

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

Article contains only one verifiable source of information and lacks WP:Notability. BlitzGreg (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG Rafaelgriffin (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking independent references. A search revealed download sites and incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:51, 20 January 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.