Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 January	19 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) 01:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Władysław Kisieliczyn[edit]

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

Not-notable bio, prod declined in AGF by User:DGG. Having looked at the more detailed pl wiki I stand by this: local coverage at best, nothing else. Pl wiki article is being AFD too (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2014:01:11:Władysław Kisieliczyn) and the discussion there indicates it was successfully AFD before and recreated by author (subject/otherwise COI seems an issue, too). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to deletion--if the article was still in the pl WP at the time of the prod, it needed a discussion. It would seem normally better or them to consider it there first, DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 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, buff bills 7701 00:02, 19 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 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 11:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local coverage only; the best that I could find is this but it too falls short of the depth and extent of coverage needed to meet WP:CREATIVE. AllyD (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every "poet, sculptor, social activist, blogger, angler" (angler?) is notable. If anyone can find substantial sourcing from reliable sources, please post. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:35, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Banja Koviljača[edit]

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

No sources, notability unestablished. A Google Books search [1] failed to identify any sources whatsoever for this "Battle". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are sources on Serbian language that mentions this event. One of them is work of Dedijer (Dedijer, Vladimir (1990). From April 6, 1941, to November 27, 1942. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-10091-0.) who is extensively used in articles on wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is what is required. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its better to give a chance to new editor who created this article to present sources? I quickly found one Serbian language source (Ristanović, Slobodan V. (2011). U ime slobode i pravde našeg naroda: ustanak protiv fašističkog okupatora 1941. Pilastro. ISBN 978-86-915041-0-6.) which served as basis for text in Večernje Novosti (link and link). The former discuss this event in detail. The topic of this article is re-capture of German-occupied town performed by the resistance forces at the beginning of September 1941 when almost all Europe was German-occupied. If there are sources which proves this really happened this is certainly a very notable topic, don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are reports of Allied sources that present information about this event:
The Četniks: a survey of Četnik activity in Yugoslavia, April 1941-July 1944. G-2 (pb), A.f.h.q. 1944. p. 9. The Chetniks under Miseta captured Loznica on 31 August and the mining town of Zajača on the next day. Banja Koviljaca also fell to them, and Racic even managed to penetrate into Sabac without succeeding in establishing control over that town
Erpenbeck, Dirk-Gerd (1976). Serbien 1941 [i.e. neunzehnhunderteinundvierzig]: deutsche Militärverwaltung und serbischer Widerstand. Biblio Verlag. p. 101. ISBN 978-3-7648-1056-6. Am 1.9. wurden Teile eines Jagdkommandos ostwärts Losnica aufgerieben, der Rest bei Koviljaca eingeschlossen. Ebenso ging das Werk Stolica verloren und der Angriff gegen Krupanj nunmehr direkt eingeleitet. Der Versuch der--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Komitet, Savez Komunista Jugoslavije. Centralni; Tito, Josip Broz (1948). Political Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia: Report Delivered at the V Congress of the CPY.. There are tons of communist sources that emphasize this towns were captured during uprising. Some of them say Chetniks did it with Partisan units on the way to help them, some say that small Partisan help was provided to Chetniks, while the least neutral emphasize that only Partisans "liberated" those towns.
on the opposite side from communist sources are tons of sources of Chetniks who emphasize they alone captured all towns of West Serbia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That will be difficult, because despite gentle suggestions, obvious indications of lack of consensus, and clear warnings to comply with WP policies, the editor that created the two articles I have AfD'd has in fact been blocked. The G2 (intelligence branch) document is probably a primary document BTW. The topic is notable if WP policy considers it notable, asking rhetorical questions about whether I personally consider it notable is entirely irrelevant. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New editor who created this article has been blocked for only 24 hours. His conduct is not a valid argument for deletion. My question was not rhetorical.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It remains to be seen whether the supposedly new editor is able to get the message. Initial indications aren't good. Your question surely must have been rhetorical, unless you believe my views on whether this "battle" is notable or not is actually relevant to this discussion. They aren't, so your question clearly is rhetorical, or you don't understand the guideline. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is certainly important. Based on my explanation I thought you would ~~redraw~~ withdraw your nomination. Will you please consider ~~redrawing~~ withdrawing of your nomination and allow new editor and other interested editors to present sources which clarify that this event is notable?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean withdraw? Redraw means to physically draw something again. Your "explanation" currently consists of Dedijer (possibly fair enough, but needing reliable corroboration), two citations from what is pretty clearly a primary source, and one from what appears to be a children's textbook publisher. I think I'll let the nomination stand and see where this goes, frankly. Given the behaviour of the editor in question, I think the questionable neutrality of their approach means all their work since registering should be closely examined to ensure no hoaxes are being pulled on WP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant withdraw. Thank you for your reply. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; weak sourcing (including overreliance on primary sources) and neutrality problems. Get rid of it. bobrayner (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources on this event. I have added valid references to this page and intend to continue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us know if you manage to bring it up to wikipedia standards. bobrayner (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced notable event. The circumstances have changed since the article's nomination. It is now upto Wikipedia's standards. IJA (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been updated with references, and it's good enough to stay and be worked on further. - Anonimski (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recent reference updates put it over the line.Zvonko (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfD withdrawn by nominator - Despite some issues with primary, non-third party and potentially unreliable sources, I believe there is now sufficient reliably sourced coverage to justify the existence of the article. It still has very significant issues in a range of areas, but the notability issue has been put to rest now IMO. Closing admin can close as "keep" as far as I am concerned. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:18, 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. Nobody supports retention. Sandstein 12:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Zavlaka (1941)[edit]

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

No sources, notability unestablished. A Google Books search [2] failed to identify any sources whatsoever for this "Battle". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about Serbian language sources? Maybe its better to give a chance to new editor who created this article to present sources? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly found one Serbian language source (Ristanović, Slobodan V. (2011). U ime slobode i pravde našeg naroda: ustanak protiv fašističkog okupatora 1941. Pilastro. ISBN 978-86-915041-0-6.) which served as basis for text in Večernje Novosti (link and link). The latter actually names this event as Battle of Zavlaka (UspeŠnom ishodu borbe za oslobođenje Krupnja pripomogla je i bitka kod Zavlake i Mojkovića [sucessful outcome of the Battle for Krupanj was helped by the Battle of Zavlaka and Mojković]).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first thing you read on a Google Translation of the Serb-version of this article is that it is named a "skirmish" and not a battle. Second thing is that they speak of a Chetnik victory, not a decisive victory. My conclusion is that the author has a serious POV what renders the article unreliable. The Banner talk 00:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the use of the term "battle" to describe a skirmish nor describing the victory as "decisive" are reasons for deletion. Neither, in fact, is a serious POV problem. If the skirmish happened and reliable sources speak of it, then we can have an article on it. I have no opinion on the article at the moment. Srnec (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. "Google Translation of the Serb-version of this article" is not a valid reason for deletion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems like a routine skirmish from WWII. Sourcing showing is zilch. I'm not sure where the Keep/Delete line lies on such matters, but this one seems very, very weak at a glance. Carrite (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. What about merging with Uprising in Serbia?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree that anything that can be reliably sourced should be upmerged to Uprising in Serbia and this article deleted. It is not notable in its own right. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you merge anything from this article, than it can't be deleted. See WP:MAD for more info. 46.107.88.236 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reemo (band)[edit]

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

Removed peacock and commentry, was left with very little. Went here to search charting claim for single Rushin Man, not found , then searched for Reemo, agian no result, Fails WP:NMUSIC, no record label signing and no charting album/singles Murry1975 (talk) 20:42, 18 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 21:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article indicated that they had placed on the IRMA charts, and if you search that website you'll find this, this, and this. A google search also found this article from Hot Press which provides significant coverage and confirms the removed claim that the band won the 'Best International Band' award at the New York International Music Festival. I also found a record review from the Irish Times on HighBeam ([3]). More may be found once the Google News archive is back up. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Also, three more articles from Hot Press: [4], [5], [6]. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Also articles from the Leinster Leader here and here and another chart source: [7]. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hits on a recognised chart, sufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what Michig has found, per WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Michig. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 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) 01:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Andrus[edit]

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

non notable person. Lack of reliable indi sources satisfying WP:GNG / WP:MUSICIAN Widefox; talk 20:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a local musician with local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Fisheries Agency[edit]

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

The "European Fisheries Agency" does not exist, but was likely misidentified from the European Fisheries Control Agency. Int21h (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Int21h (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom BlueSalix (talk) 22:14, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Potrich[edit]

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

Very questionable notability. All refs but one are to the woman's own website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 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) 01:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhoom Anthem[edit]

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

No importance/notability (WP:NOTIFS) to include in Wikipedia Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inconsequential. At best, it warrants a tiny paragraph in the main Dhoom article. Oddly, the main article has no equivalent at hiwiki. Why not? 99.247.1.157 (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 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. Fails WP:GNG, but some argument could be made that Brainstormers might be notable, and if that article were to be created, some of the material from here might be used. If anybody wants to write Brainstormers and wants access to the old contents of Maria Dumlao for reference, ask an admin to userfy the archived contents. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Dumlao[edit]

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

Not previously PRODed, but a notability tag was removed. The plethora of sources is of dubious reliability. Some link to 404 pages, while others are merely exhibition listings or faculty listed staff. Some have only very fleeting mentions as a co-exhibitor while some don't appear to mention the subject at all. Further searches have not turned up any sources that provide in-depth coverage. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Brainstormers seem to have got a bit more press than Dumlao. Possibly this could be moved, if there are sufficient sources on them. I'll try and have a more detailed look later. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply So punish the article with a deletion tag because the notability tag was removed? "The plethora of sources is of dubious reliability" is a complete exaggeration. Do a little further searching and relink!! Someone already has in a situation where you don't need to (Mira Schor book source.) You didn't even try, and your deletion tag is excessive.--38.105.132.130 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @38.105.132.130: would you be so kind please to refrain from personal attacks? And if a notability tag is removed without any attempt to solve the underlying problem, I also often take AfD as the next step. --Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Done. But taking AfD's gotta stop: It's an escalation. Nowhere in Wikipedia's guidelines does it say to do this. The woman who initially put a notability tag didn't explain her rationale and is trigger-happy.--Aichik (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop worrying about the person who first put the notability tag - that's now unimportant. Kudpung did give a rationale for deletion, and this discussion will continue until it is resolved one way or the other. What would be useful is adding more references to third-party sources to prove the subject is notable. LadyofShalott 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article does not convince me of a pass of WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. I suspect the Brainstormers would be sufficiently notable as a group, however, so if an article on them is created it would be ok to redirect from this title to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See below. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Since folks seem to be thinking the Brainstormers are notable, even if this particular artist may not be on her own, how about we userfy this so it can be reworked into an article about the group? LadyofShalott 17:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:ARTIST in the following ways:

1. a) She's a part of Brainstormers, b) has shown all over Europe and in Japan, c) is part of the Vox Populi art collective, and d) her work is in the Momenta Art video library in New York City which also contains the videos of Katia Bassanini, Janet Biggs, Omer Fast, Rico Gatson, Kristin Lucas, and Ara Peterson. (The links for each show that all of these artists have either gallery representation and, if not currently, significant careers).

2. Her video work about reframing scenes from pop culture is innovative. Brainstormers is also innovative in furthering the work of the Guerilla Girls and was noted in Mira Schor's book.

3. She has "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" with the Brainstormers. She herself has "created a significant work" as evidenced by 1d, above.

4. She has won significant critical attention: ArtNews, Brooklyn Rail, ArtNet, Mira Schor book.--38.105.132.130 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also passes WP:GNG in key ways but working to beef up sources even more. thanks for your patience--38.105.132.130 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Proponents are arguing mostly in the context of being a member of the Brainstormers group, which I don't think makes her necessarily notable as an individual (e.g. the "significant critical attention" from the previous !vote is for the Brainstormers). The main issue I see is that the sources are overall very poor, which is inconsistent with a BLP. Specifically:

1. personal web page at www.mariadumlao.com: CV

Take the artist's word on her exchange program experience. I can link examples of other contemporary artists resumes here if you need. They are highly unlikely to make up something like a semester abroad and the institutions in question will NOT have a record of them on their websites as they did not graduate. In fact, most institutions don't even release the names and dates of their graduates as this is considered personal information.--Aichik (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the same reference used to show where she is from, we could take that out, if everyone really feels that that is something she made up. It's a vital, interesting detail but I can take it out if there's consensus that it should go out.--Aichik (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely it – we don't take the subject's word. WP:RS requires a source be independent of subject, which a personal web page is precisely not. This should be moved to "external links". Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Done Have one now, but knowing your inability to read and interpret things, Agricola, you will make it out to be "her personal webpage": a link from Experimental Television Center, a nonprofit from which Dumlao received a residency.--Aichik (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. web advert

Done Look at it. It's the page from a nonprofit, NOT a web advert. The NY Arts link confirms the same information.--Aichik (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely a web advert – it is an advertisement for a "record release event". Agricola44 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It's not an advert in the sense that the band paid for it: It's informational. That's why I said nonprofit for the organization that owns and administers the website. AND AS I SAID THERE'S ALREADY LINKS ESTABLISHING THE SAME FACT.--Aichik (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:WIKILAWYERING – this web page's purpose is to advertise a performance. It doesn't matter who "paid for it". Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Agricola, YOU are the one doing the WP:WIKILAWYERING. Of course it matter "who paid for something:" That shows commercial interest. There is none expressed on that page or by Bowerbird.--Aichik (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. dead link

Done Updated the link.--Aichik (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. dead link

Done Source in the middle of updating their website as told here. The name of the group show, Silhouette, is there, however, and anyone is free to contact the gallery to confirm Dumlao was in that show.

Again, not WP:RS. It is not in the character of a reliable source to require the reader to contact an outside entity to check the veracity of the claim. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

There was an older link that had this information. This is in the history of this article and as any person half a brain knows, websites are always updating all the time. --Aichik (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, I could cite the program cited.--Aichik (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5. web page with trivial mention: "Artists include [long list of names], Maria Dumlao, [long list of names]"

Done Supplemented with a second link to an article in the Honolulu Advertiser.--Aichik (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6. dead link

Done Replaced with link from Experimental Television Center, a nonprofit from which Dumlao received a residency.--Aichik (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7. personal web page: "about me"

Done Same as above.--Aichik (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8. web page: no mention of Maria Dumlao

Done Because the link wasn't supposed to reference her, it's about the Brainstormers. They are in an image on left with a caption.--Aichik (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, about the Brainstormers, as opposed to discussing Dumlao as an individual. This one is fine for adding extra information to an otherwise already notable individual, but in and of itself it does not establish Dumlao's notability, only the Brainstormers group notability. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

9. about "Brainstormers" as a group

Done Please read more carefully: Her name is right there in the paragraph about the Brainstormers.--Aichik (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is again about the group, not Dumlao as an individual. This and other sources like it basically argue WP:INHERITED. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

10. personal web page on Vox Populi: "My work explores..."

Done Review the website more carefully and work on some articles on young American artists: It's not a personal page. It's a page devoted to her work on a nonprofit's website. All such content is always vetted by a third party. It's not straight up promotional: It's informational.--Aichik (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Dumlao speaks in the first person here ("My work explores...") suggests she had some level of control overt this web page, hence it's not independent of her. Again, another great "more info" URL that belongs in an "external links" grouping at the bottom of the article, but is not itself WP:RS. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

11. personnel web page: Bucks County Community College

Done Is this a critique? Don't conflate personal with personnel. This is the school's website and establishes that she teaches there.--Aichik (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, she is college personnel here, hence my wording. Agricola44 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, then it's not a problem. One point for the work already there.--Aichik (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But again, a community college web page does not advance the notability argument. It simply says that she works in academia, a tautology for all academics. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

12. dead link

Done See response to #4.

13. dead link

Done. Updated link.--Aichik (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14. personal webpage at www.mariadumlao.com: portfolio of works

Done I don't see what's wrong with referencing an artist's words about their own work. They would bring more clarity to understanding it. Do we NOT want information about artworks, just lists of where the work was shown? This doesn't seem enlightening.--Aichik (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we want more info, but this is another personal page that is not WP:RS – move to "external links", as is convention. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I also take issue with calling this a personal page. It's not some website by a 14-year old bored teenager or a soccer mom and her kids. It has NO information about the artist's personal life! It is about her work, it is not personal. Find some other words, and stop throwing that word around like a badge.--Aichik (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15. web page with trivial mention (i.e. her name within a large list of other names)

Not done Like I explained above, this is a significant list. The Momenta Art video library in New York City also contains the videos of Katia Bassanini, Janet Biggs, Omer Fast, Rico Gatson, Kristin Lucas, and Ara Peterson and more (The links for each show that all of these artists have either gallery representation and, if not currently, significant careers). The list would seem like gibberish to anyone new to contemporary art, however.--Aichik (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will edit this tomorrow. Enough work for today.--Aichik (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish or not. The salient point is that her mention is trivial. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Here is the correct reference: My guess is that Agricola would deem 1 out of 20 in a open submission policy in New York City as being noteworthy as original research.

16. discussion in "The St Claire", which describes itself as "a digital publication...committed to engaging the Philadelphia art community"

17. ARTnews article: no mention of Maria Dumlao

Done Doesn't have to. Once again, this is a section about the Brainstormers specifically, a detail about their work. Use the linked Mira Schor book as the means to link Dumlao to Brainstormers.--Aichik (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another WP:INHERITED plea. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yet another attempt by Agricola to hide behind Wikipedian officialdom. Anyone can look at our notes and judge. Why don't you try to convince us, rather than turn to WP:WIKILAWYERING?--Aichik (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18. Brooklyn Rail article: trivial mention, lists the names of the members of Brainstormers

Done This reference is fine. Agricola44 neglects to mention this entire article is on the Brainstormers. ("Trivial" indeed.) Reference specifically to text "they protested in the street in Chelsea, New York, at the corner of West 24th Street and 10th Avenue, getting passers-by to fill in mad lib-style postcards protesting about the lack of female representation in art galleries." in Wikipedia article.--Aichik (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, again the operative context is the group, not Dumlao – more WP:INHERITED. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

19. Web article on Brainstormers: no mention of Maria Dumlao

Done Yet again, Agricola44 reads the reference out of context: the reference is meant to show that the Brainstormers showed at the LGBT Center in New York City, nothing more.--Aichik (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, WP:INHERITED. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

20. web page: no mention of Maria Dumlao

Done A website with not the best archive. This shows she's in there but it's not what we need. Taking out. See 1b above.--Aichik (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, it seems there is essentially no WP:RS for this individual, which is untenable for a BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Aichik has fixed some broken links and critiqued some of my annotations. The fact remains that whatever non-trivial sources are out there are predominantly about the Brainstormers, not about Maria Dumlao as an individual. If we follow policy here, all the WP:OR will have to stripped (according to WP:BLP) and it will leave essentially a stub saying that Maria Dumlao is a member of the Brainstormers. Agricola44 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

For heaven's sake let me finish inputting then you can give your less-than-careful conclusion, Agricola44.--Aichik (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to insult me. I'm only a messenger. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Not insulting you, I don't know you. Insulting the quality of your work: You need to stop and read more carefully overall.--Aichik (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, once you're finished, I'll critique your less-than-convincing edits :) Agricola44 (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Case in point: You concluded that by spending a total of 5 minutes looking over what I've added. Just want you to do your job, really. If you can't; we'll get a third opinion, thanks.--Aichik (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the entire point of this page is to get multiple opinions, and several have chimed in here, that's not exactly necessary. LadyofShalott 00:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the above list in particular, Lady. thanks--Aichik (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral here, but I would just like to mention that I removed the listing of this discussion at WP:3 because although I wouldn't necessarily say it was listed in bad faith, it looks like borderline forum shopping; besides, if several users have already responded here, there has already been a third opinion given anyway. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis. I responded individually to Aichik's points above. In summary, the references still only fall basically into 2 groups: those that discuss the Brainstormers group or only mention Dumlao trivially and those that are basically personal webpages having some association with Dumlao herself. Rules for BLPs are strict and, in this case, there simply isn't a sufficient body of WP:RS that establishes Dumlao's notability as an individual. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Reiteration. Everyone can take the time to read my points above. The term trivial and trivially is being used willy nilly by Agricola44, these are highly subjective terms, as is his blanket use of personal web page, when I've taken the time to make clear how that description does not fit each situation. Agricola44 responses to most of my counter arguments are quick, and he's in a big rush to delete this article for unknown personal reasons. He has little experience in editing articles about contemporary art, but importantly doesn't seem to care very much for it--compare his style to this editors'--so it behooves us to wait for other opinions to be expressed here instead of his insistent, incorrect ones, thanks.--Aichik (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite several more ad hominems above, I remind you that I'm arguing policy here, nothing more or less. I have no vested interest in having or not having this article on WP, no history with it, and no personal bias for or against Dumlao or contemporary art. It's time for you to cease with the continuing accusations. The heart of the matter seems to be that you have a different understanding of the validity of sources than I and the other eds here that frequent AfD discussions. As an example, you claim, in rebutting #14 above, that the web page at www.mariadumlao.com showing her portfolio is not a personal web page because it was not created "by a 14-year old bored teenager or a soccer mom and her kids". This reflects a basic misunderstanding of WP sourcing requirements, one of the cornerstones of which is independence from the subject. I submit that there are other misunderstandings as well, including what is meant by "trivial mention", why simply being a member of a group does not automatically confer notability on Dumlao as an individual, and how the requirements for bios of living people are among the most strict on WP. My assessment is made on the basis of these well-established guidelines and, if they are applied in this case, will necessarily lead to the deletion of this article. I can offer no more input here and will sit-out the rest of this discussion. I hope not to look forward to more snarky replies laced with insults and ad hominems. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Your list is outdated at this point anyway as I have added links from AlterNet, Art Fag City, and corrected all the dead links (There are a total of 24 references now rather than the 20 listed above.) Thanks for your time, Agricola.--Aichik (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only effect of the Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and filibustering exhibited by the article's promoter is to strengthen my opinion above from weak delete to delete. If this is the best that can be done for the subject, it's not good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. That's only your opinion, David. I've outlined succinctly how this article merits keeping. You need to outline succinctly, in a different way than what's been outlined already, WHY my points aren't good enough for you. Try to focus on content, not attitude.--Aichik (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be more explicit, my opinion is that the article is puffed up with very weak sources, that this puffery obscures any real sources that might be present, that the subject does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST, and that your insistence on trying to counter every argument in this AfD is hardening opinions and thereby making it more likely rather than less likely that the article will be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

~~Keep~~ Again, Why are you not more succinct? I suspect it's because you can't be. Here is how the article fits notability as established via GNG:

-"Significant coverage is more than a passing mention (#5 Art Fag City, #6 NY Arts), but it need not be the main topic of the source material. My emphases. (#9 AlterNet, Dumlao is quoted; #23 Brooklyn Rail Dumlao's name appears in first sentence of second paragraph on a whole article about the Brainstormers: The idea here is to reveal that the people behind the Brainstormers early on.)

Done

-"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media,and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. (All sources, except the 2 or 3 that link to Dumlao's website)

Done

-"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online (NYFA article, Momenta catalog) and do not have to be in English. (See my points about Significant coverage, two paragraphs up)

Done

-"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. (All the art magazines, Honolulu-based papers, Momenta)

Done --Aichik (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - I struck out your redundant "keep", since you had already expressed a keep opinion earlier. The rule here is to only allow a single keep or delete opinion per participant. (For instance, that's why I struck out my own earlier weak delete when I later expressed a delete opinion without the modifier.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe's comment was very succinct. I suspect you meant something else. LadyofShalott 00:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the arguments based on "she is a part of ..." are irrelevant. As for the GNG, it is true that it depends on interpretation of what we mean by substantial coverage and the similar key words in the definition, and whether we regard local sources as being sufficiently discriminating. The place to decide it is here, and the basis for it is consensus. I agree with what I think is the developing consensus, that this is not sufficient 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:32, 27 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) 01:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Barthakur[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines per WP:PROF. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF. Tal Brenev (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This unremarkable CV looks like a CSD#A7 to me. --Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a resume, not an encyclopedia article. Even if he were notable according to WP:PROF (which there seems to be no evidence of) this would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jussychoulex (talk) 14:10, 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. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 16:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rosendo[edit]

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

Single self-reference only. Subject may not pass WP:GNG. The show might need an article. heather walls (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Interviewed here, Emmy win confirmed here and here with a picture. VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Tal Brenev (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:24, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Affinity marketing[edit]

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

Seems to be a promotion of a particular service. No sources beyond those listing the company that created the article. Holdek (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per Mark viking's rewrite. Holdek (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~This nomination does not seem to be made in good faith.~~ For example, there are 2590 Google book results for the phrase 'affinity marketing'. It easily passed WP:GNG. WP:REFSPAM can (and should) be cleaned up, but that is not a valid reason for deleting articles. - Mr X 16:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia: Speedy keep and Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Holdek (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, criteria 2: vexatious nominations. The fact that you tried to speedy delete a four year old article and obviously did not follow WP:BEFORE, as well as a review of some of your other edits suggests that there is a problem. AGF is not a suicide pact.- Mr X 17:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a speedy deletion discussion, but rather an article for deletion discussion. Read: Wikipedia: Deletion process #Deletion discussions. Holdek (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The article was created by a user that was fairly soon thereafter blocked for a promotional user name. The article as created was promotional for a particular company. Instead of CSD G11, which should have happened at that time, the editors instead chose simply to delete the spam references. Not a great deal of references available, not enough for this to stand alone as a encyclopedic article. Might be suitable for Wiktionary or perhaps a blurb in another marketing related article. Safiel (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Snow delete. Safiel pretty much said it best, and frankly, I don't even see a point of transwiki-ing anything to Wikitionary. It doesn't help that much of the article is listed in the first person. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest having a look at WP:BEFORE and then having a look at the 605 scholarly sources, the 2,640 book sources and the 530 magazine articles.- Mr X 21:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've rewritten the article (still a stub) based on one secondary and two tertiary sources. This is a notable concept that has been around for decades in the marketing field. As MrX points out, there are hundreds of GBook and GScholar hits, with many secondary and tertiary sources in the first few pages of hits demonstrating notability of the concept per WP:GNG. A notable topic and a rewritten article based on RS suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the article is under construction; it would be nice if MrX would insert a few of those many sources into the article. Miniapolis 23:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark viking. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, article has been improved and notability has been demonstrated. If somebody had cared to do this in the first place, we would not be here. Too often, crap is slapped on Wikipedia with no effort made to indicate notability and we are forced to go through this charade to force people to do what should have already been done. Safiel (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark's improvements. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:17, 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 no consensus. The initial reason for listing isn't even valid anyway. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Capital Reinsurance[edit]

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

Unauthorised and Incorrect information Asiacapitalre (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Unauthorised" is not an issue here: there are no "authorised" articles. And if there is indeed incorrect information, that is a matter for normal editing, though an editor with a WP:COI should propose any corrections on the article Talk page rather than edit directly. That said, there is a question here as to whether the firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment - ~~While~~ having "Unauthorised" information is not a valid reason for deletion~~, I could not find enough reliable coverage for the organization (Google News only gives me one link, and it's a press release).~~ Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are sources. The Report: Bahrain 2009 - Page 75 Oxford Business Group is a reliable source: "The takaful segment also recently saw a new player when Asia Capital Reinsurance for ReTakaful was granted a licence. The company is a subsidiary of ACR ReTakaful Holdings, itself a joint venture between Dubai Islamic Investment Group ..." and (2) Gulf Business - Volume 13 2008 Page 14 "ACR Retakaful Holdings Limited is a joint venture between Dubai Group, Khazanah Nasional Bhd, the investment arm of the Malaysian Government and Singapore- based Asia Capital Reinsurance (ACR). The deal was completed through ..." In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be significant coverage though. Only small mentions. I'll change my mind if a longer mention is found, however. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's more under "Asia Capital Re", just added. User:Narutolovehinata5 Did you check Google News for the shorter name? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asiacapitalre, please do not delete sources from the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, "Asia Capital Re" does give me more hits for some reason. Abbreviating Reinsurance as "Re" is somewhat weird to me though. As such, I've changed my !vote to Keep. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:36, 17 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Materials Corporation[edit]

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

DePRODed. Concern was: No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:LISTED and has enough independent third party refs to meet WP:ORGDEPTH per WP:ORG, therefore it meets WP:GNG. WP:NOTYELLOW does not apply at all given that the article does not even contain a phone number, address, etc. Enough third party sources exist to expand the article beyond a stub. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VMS--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per VMS. Tal Brenev (talk) 19:12, 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. Notability has not been established during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Deyto[edit]

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

Doesn't demonstrate notability. Article created by a user who has only ver edited this article and uploaded image for it that looks like a copyright violation. It appears subject of article has merely worked commercially in photography and taken some portraits. Lopifalko (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what? A link in the article (indeed, a very grandly presented one) shows that he's a teacher of photography, as a search engine will confirm. Search engines also demonstrate that his work has been exhibited. I don't immediately find very much, but it does only take me a few seconds to see that he "has merely worked commercially in photography and taken some portraits" is rather a crude description. (As a crude description it could apply to Arbus as well. And no, I'm not suggesting that Deyto is a second Arbus.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything substantial yet regarding his teaching. That link says only that "Lisa developed her unique style with the guidance of instructors who became her mentors. John Vano, John Deyto...". Other results regarding teaching are RateMyTeacher sites, or where it just mentions the 1 word for him, "Professor". Maybe I missed something but I think it could be that he just does occasional teaching on a single course such as 1 day a week, or one lesson a term, as a professional they bring in (not noteworthy). The exhibition is in an arts material shop (thus not noteworthy) and from what I see there is no mention of it having been on for more than a single day (it must have been, but there is no mention of it). I added that plus a 2006 exhibition, but the 2006 exhibition is a Stanford University group exhibition in what looks to be a private gallery - is this just something related to their studies? It doesn't smell noteworthy to me. He appears to be more noteworthy in his professional tech career than in photography. Regardless, what reliable sources have spoken about him? -Lopifalko (talk)

Yes, there is indeed very little about him. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BLPNOTE or WP:VERIFY (possibly unreliable sources). Tal Brenev (talk) 19:19, 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. Consensus is that this is an undesirable content fork created to bypass the full protection of the source article where inclusion of this content is contested. This dispute must be resolved by seeking consensus at the source article. Sandstein 12:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the British Monarchy[edit]

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

Appears to be a pov content fork of Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Evidently, this article was started in evasion of the full protect currently in place on that article. Safiel (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a coat rack for pushing anti-monarchy views. DrKiernan (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Although this article's POV may not be entirely neutral, criticism of the British monarchy is a real thing and is notable enough for encyclopedic content; the article appears to have sufficient sources. The article seems to be written in good faith, and improving the article would be more appropriate. Another option, perhaps, would be to merge to British Monarchy. Tal Brenev (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a textbook WP:POVFORK. Review of the original article's talk page shows this article arose after there was a failure to create a consensus for the addition of this information. EricSerge (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the original article's talk page was created to balance its POV, as the article appeared too biased towards the British Monarchy. To create a neutral point of view, at least a few criticisms should either be added to the main article, or this article should be kept. Concerning WP:POVFORK, I again recommend merging to British Monarchy. Tal Brenev (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the talk page was not created to balance the article's POV since the article is not bias. The talk page section was created in an attempt to skew the article. DrKiernan (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was the section created to skew the article? Adding a "criticisms" section, which many articles have, by the way, would not skew the article, but show that there are other points of view in addition to what has already been written. Adding additional opinions to an article of that length does not immediately bias the article. Tal Brenev (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, why aren't you suggesting a "Praise" section which we fill with thousands upon thousands of laudatory messages praising the Queen? Sections of either description are inherently bias. Show me a sentence in the article that is bias towards the monarchy. DrKiernan (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the article should contain two separate sections for praise and criticisms. Certain articles have a criticism section which contain both negative criticisms and counter-criticisms/counter-arguments, so as not to give undue weight. Some sections only have negative criticisms because the rest of the article is enough to balance the POV. Consider the following sections of articles: Christianity#Criticism_and_apologetics, Pokemon#Criticism_and_controversy and Scientology#Controversies. These sections do not "skew" the article, nor do they give undue weight to the article as a whole. The same would apply to this article: a small section about controversy on the British Monarchy doesn't affect the whole article. Tal Brenev (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Modern status. This nominated article is split off from there. That is why it is a content fork. The section was skewed to remove the polling data and solely present criticism and then when that wasn't accepted, it was split off as this article. DrKiernan (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean by "skew" now. The editor removed content that supported the British Monarchy ("70–80% of the British public support the continuation of the monarchy") and added content against it. Why not fix the criticism part for formatting and copyediting, and then keep both it and the "Modern Status" section? Then it wouldn't be skewing since both views would be there. -Tal Brenev (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine by me. DrKiernan (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: ~~there are many other articles titled "Criticism of...", yet they are not deleted per WP:POVFORK.~~ According to WP:POVFORK: 'There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).' Tal Brenev (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything that's actually sourced to reliable sources can be merged into Monarchy of the United Kingdom. The edit warring on that article which led to the creation of this one shows clear POV pushing, since the original section which the editor in question removed was not biased either way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 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 Nomination withdrawn, I will let people decide on talk page if this article should be renamed. LibStar (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amira Pyliotis[edit]

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

declined prod. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. the article includes a lot of uncited grand claims like her being described by rolling stone magazine. Yes she won an APRA award, [8] but it is not in a major category. LibStar (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Rolling Stone one is in fact cited to the month of issue; the nominator's claim is trivially factually incorrect. I hope this isn't yet another sloppy deletion nomination - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Tecoma (musician) or something. Tecoma being her stagename. She had national rotation. "Triple J put her single City Folk on high rotation" Santer, Vanessa (5 June 2006), "No nerves is good nerves for fledgling performer", Sydney MX. Also enough coverage for WP:GNG. The billboard piece and Shedden, Iain (28 March 2006), "Young troubadours sing the praises of industry assistance", The Australian are both very good sources. Also available are "Seamless blend of styles", Hobart Mercury, 6 September 2007 - Burdon, Daniel (6 September 2007), "Amira's brew is a top drop", Centralian Advocate - "Alice exports eclectic Tecoma", Gold Coast Sun, 21 February 2007 - Rogers, Chelsea (12 January 2007), "Alice comes first for Amira album", Centralian Advocate - Langford, Ben (5 May 2006), "Karma coming back to Tecoma", Northern Territory News - Falconer, Rebecca (11 November 2005), "JJJ picks Amira", Centralian Advocate. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per duffbeerforme's comments the article should be renamed to Tecoma as she is more notable for her stage name. In 2006 she won APRA's Professional Development Award. There are numerous indepedent verifiable references to Tecoma. She has toured international, appearing at Popkomm in Berlin. Dan arndt (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this nomination is just silly, she is notable, the Rolling Stone is cited (note that I've added a Billboard magazine reference since it was nominated). --CyberXRef^talk 01:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is notable under her performance name, Tecoma. Numerous independent reliable sources available. Toured internationally. Music on high rotation on national radio. Nominator admits subject won an APRA Award but the claim that it is "not in a major category" is irrelevant: I'm sure there are 1000s of artists that would want any APRA award.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator, I am happy to close this with a redirect to Tecoma. is that ok with people? LibStar (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment seen a good idea.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tecoma is an article on plants so no, it as not OK. It looses this article. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - easy solved Duff Man - just use Tecoma (musician) as suggested by Grahame.Dan arndt (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then that would be a close with a move to there. Closing with a redirect loses this article. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could move the article to this new name. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 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. The entire content was a bulleted list of seven red links. Sandstein 12:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus stations in Slovenia[edit]

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

Was for some reason deprodded, Anyway non notable bus station list, Fails GNG. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete a list of 4 with only one notable is hardly an article. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article in its current form is incomplete, but has the potential to grow. The one blue-linked station is not notable, but the rest of them are (in the sense that they have been covered by mainstream media) and a number of them are still missing. It's comparable to List of bus stations in Wales, which has also been kept. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All 4 stations are not notable, It's been incomplete for 7 whole years and hasn't been improved since then, The Wales article has 9 notable stations with 8 sourced for them plus The table is presented in a way that's helpful to the reader .... So no List of bus stations in Wales isn't comparable in the slightest. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed some additional stations that have been covered by the major media. If the list gets deleted, it will be never improved. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again all are non notable, Well It can be by being recreated.-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that all are non-notable is simply wrong. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or my statement's correct, Well agree to disagree & all that. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide newspaper articles from the main Slovene media that have covered these stations in detail (see e.g. for Kranj: [9]). If tiny villages in Slovenia or elsewhere are considered notable enough to have their own article, why not central bus stations in the largest towns? They're visited, known and written about by much more people than these villages. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no basis here for a list article on this topic at the moment. There are no Wikipedia articles about Slovenian bus stations, not even any reliable sources to prove the redlinks exist. There is not even a section on Bus transport in Transport in Slovenia, so maybe the author will be better employed improving the basic transport information about Slovenia on Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a shame. I'll invest some effort in writing at least the basic stubs about the notable bus stations in Slovenia and have written a short section (needs additional work) in the article Transport in Slovenia. Until then, if nothing else, this list can be replaced with a redirect to the relevant section of this article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:54, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Dehghani[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Company (Criminal Clothing) article was deleted. Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not in any way making it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 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) 01:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Harrison (County Leitrim)[edit]

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

Non-notable person The Banner talk 14:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many people murdered by the IRA. Tragic, but not sufficiently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hansen (pornographic actor)[edit]

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

Fails the the WP:GNG. No secondary source coverage. Inactive, no new sources for five years. Insufficient suitable sourcing for a WP:BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG, gross RS deficiency. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 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. There seems to be a rough consensus that she falls under WP:BLP1E. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr Tarar[edit]

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

Does not meet any WP:Notability standard. She had an online run-in with a minor celebrity. Her name should be mentioned in the Sashi Tharoor and Sunanda Pushkar arcticles. But she should not have an article herself. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 12:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shashi Tharoor is not 'minor' celebrity. The affair or whatever with this lady and subsequent death of his wife is going to have impact on his political career. Hence subject meets WP:LASTING for notability. Abhi (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to revisiting the subject once more can be said about its lasting results/effects; merge/move usable information into Sashi Tharoor and Sunanda Pushkar if possible or very weak move (and adapt) to an article about the affair/scandal/what will you.

Both Sashi Tharoor and Sunanda Pushkar are notable. Mehr Tarar currently is not; she falls square into the category WP:1E and/or WP:BLP1E as person notable for one event, for an event that is in my opinion borderline-notable.

Said event might qualify for an article of its own, but would in my opinion currently still run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SENSATION as I believe no lasting effect has yet been proven or made likely; that is to say, it will likely have some effect but it cannot yet be said if this will be lasting or of a notable degree. It may have an impact on his (Shashi Tharoor's) political career, but I believe it is too soon to say so for sure; and even then it would to a degree depend on how much of an impact to decide whether or not a separate article is justified; so long as the event itself is not yet notable enough for an article, someone known solely for their part in that event will almost certainly not be either. Not quite every event that is notable enough to mention on the article of a notable person for its impact on them is also notable enough for an article of its own.

That does not mean the event is automatically non-notable, but neither is it automatically notable, and I believe that for sensitive events involving living (or recently dead) people, it is better to be cautious.

Note: I may count as involved to some degree by means of the article's creator seeking my opinion on whether or not the subject warranted having its own article well before the creation of this AfD. See here. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a tweet to celeb will not qualify her for a Wikipedia article! Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - this is a poor time for this article to be up for AFD, with the story of Sunanda Pushkar's death still developing. That means there's a lot of media coverage about her at the moment, but it's too early to tell if she'll demonstrate any lasting notability. I'd say we should keep this article for the time being, and reconsider it for deletion in a few weeks if it becomes clear there's nothing more to say about her and she's just a WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The story is still developing. Changed from Keep to Delete.Nestwiki (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Developing story _SMS^{^{Let's talk}} 20:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a single tweet does not equal notabililty. Epicgenius (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This page seems to be the one for describing a twitter controversy , which is just evolving. The person does not qualify to be in notable article list , based on some twitter wars. Zee$han... 04:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshankm (talk • contribs)
Delete -- the subject isnt really notable even in Pakistan and is a sham 'journalist'. There are too many such articles about so-called media/journalistic persons from Pakistan which in my view need to be thoroughly checked and pruned and a large number deleted. User:Hilda Khan
Delete – She doesn't qualify Notability. Doesn't even have a single Creative Commons image of her which I could find.. poloolop —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that she is not notable. However, having available Creative Commons images is not a deciding factor in notability. Plenty of non-notable (by Wikipedia's standards, anyway) people do have CC images. Plenty of notable people don't. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The story has made headlines in all the major newspapers & TV Channels in India. People would want to have a credible Non POV information about her which is only possible on Wikipedia Đõc §aмέέЯ 10:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's wait for the news to unfold. -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This story has only begun to develop, and its ramifications throughout Indian politics has not yet fully played out. As the body of details of this controversy continues to grow, so will this article. -- Caponer (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --not notable, and should only be mentioned in the Shashi Tharoor article in passing. User:AsadUK200 —Preceding undated comment added 04:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think. This person isnt really notable. Thank you RizwanaJ
Delete Clear WP:BLP1E. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:BLP1E. As of now neither her nor the event/incident she is involved in is notable to deserve a separate article. The subject already finds relevant and due mention in Shashi Tharoor and Sunanda Pushkar articles. -- SMS ^Talk 16:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the incident is notable from Social Media in Indian Subcontinent POV, its been 4 days since the death and the interest in Mehr Tarar as a person is diminishing, hence no long lasting impact - please start a article on the incident as its many times notable and a landmark in terms of how seriously social media is being taken in a developing country ^Talk 00:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.188.70 (talk) [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Baker[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT notability guidelines. Only coverage is either cursory in nature (e.g., Variety) or self-published (e.g., Huffpo bio, CU blog). Also see discussion at Talk:Dix Hills, New York. czar ♔ 04:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar ♔ 04:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 3 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:47, 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, buff bills 7701 12:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Variety has enough coverage of this producer (such as here and here) that his notability seems at least debatable, but some of the Variety articles read like glorified press releases. Others are trivial mentions. Maybe someone can come up with better sources? I tried looking, but there doesn't really seem to be much coverage of his work with Howard Stern. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I scraped the bottom of every major database. There's no dedicated coverage. I brought it here because there isn't any coverage to sustain an article. czar ♔ 19:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that it's very difficult to find mentions of him anywhere but Variety, but I'm not quite sure why you're discounting that coverage. Variety is clearly a reliable source. My biggest concern, as I said, is that they read a bit too promotional, as if they're undisclosed press releases. Still, since it's impossible to prove that they are, I have to assume that they're legitimate articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they weren't legit. For purposes of the GNG, one is "about" his company and one is a cursory mention. My position is that the subject doesn't meet the GNG for want of sources, although every last little mention of him has been dug up. That's all czar ♔ 20:31, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein (novel)[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. It may be worth a redirect to author. Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 11 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)} 11:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Miles Gibson per nom. Tal Brenev (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletre Not even worth a redirect, since Worldcat shows it isn essentially no libraries. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:48, 27 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. Soft deletion as a non-contested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonell Elliott[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 10 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) 02:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 11 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)} 11:34, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Fotheringham[edit]

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

couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 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)} 11:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. And no third party sources provided. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 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. Those requesting the inclusion of this article have failed to produce evidence of notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QCubed[edit]

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

An application that fails to meet the GNG, shows very little notability. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know how I can improve the article. I am still in process of adding content to it. Some suggestion would be really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhavkaushal123 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with references. Is the article now in a good enough shape? If now, how can I still improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhavkaushal123 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the citations that you have added are all primary sources, which can not be used to demonstrate notability. Primary sources use the subject of an article to describe itself, such as using quoted passages from a book to describe the characters in it. Secondary sources, such as newspaper articles, describe the subject from an external viewpoint. Tertiary sources, such as Wikipedia, summarize secondary sources. We need independent, reliable secondary sources that show significant coverage of the topic. Reliable sources must have a demonstrated history of fact-checking and an editorial department. Unreliable sources would be blogs, personal home pages, press releases, and other self-published articles. You can see a quick summary at WP:42. The easiest way to satisfy these requirements is to locate reviews from professional journalists, such as PC World, PC Magazine, CNET, or other technology sites. Remember, blogs don't count. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:10, 11 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)} 11:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Not a notable topic (see WP:GNG for general notability guidelines). No significant coverage in reliable sources that I could find. There's a book on QCubed but it's self-published. QCubed is mentioned incidentally in

Katakwa, T. P., C. Musingwini, and B. Genc. "Online database of mine planning and peripheral software used in the South African mining industry." Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 113.6 (2013): 497-504.

Vaibhavkaushal123, it is a good effort, but there is nothing you can do; the topic simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirement (read WP:GNG). Scholarly journals or other reliable sources (e.g. industry magazines, books, conference proceedings) need to cover the topic, and they don't. Your article is informative and I hope you aren't discouraged from contributing to other Wikipedia articles. ––Agyle (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just doesn't meet notability - I couldn't find anything useful to add as a reliable source. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:38, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Leak Detection[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY notability. The parent company, Water Intelligence PLC, does not have an article. Recommend an article for parent and include ALD as a section. – S. Rich (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a significant contributor to the article and no longer believe it meets WP:NCORP, not because it isn't supported by reliable independent sources (like Inc. and WSJ) but because its coverage in these sources lacks any real depth (see WP:CORPDEPTH). —Eustress 23:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 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)} 11:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company has a size and scope of operations which could very well lead to notability - but the required coverage just isn't there. Nothing much at the article, and all I could find in a search was directory type listings. I didn't find much more for Water Intelligence, so although that was a good thought by nominator, I don't see the parent company passing WP:CORP either. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Evans (actor)[edit]

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

Contested Prod. No assertion of notability. Minor roles in films. Sources do not speak in depth about this person. Possibly meets A7 as a speedy delete, though as the Prod has been contested, it seems appropriate to open it up for wider discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR: he's a jobbing actor who's had a lot of smaller roles, some in well-known films and TV, but nothing rises to the level required (no awards; no major roles in notable films or TV, though he's starred in non-notable shorts; no singular contribution to the world of acting). I can't find substantial press coverage either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 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)} 11:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tal Brenev (talk) 19:59, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nxt[edit]

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

Stub, does not appear to meet GNG. Sources are a generic datasheet from a database of different cryptocoins, the official website of this coin, and an official press release brought to Yahoo via Accesswire. In other words, I'm not seeing a lot of coverage of this topic by sources independent of the subject. I am suggesting that it be deleted, with no prejudice toward redoing the page if it starts getting coverage from reliable, independent sources in the future. Breadblade (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the moment my vote is delete, however I would like to see better references for this cryptocurrency because it does have novel developments, and eventually there will be a valid/valuable article on it. VinceSamios (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage to indicate notability. Once more sources are added then it might be kept. ///EuroCarGT 21:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has good sources. Depreciated (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 12 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)} 11:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough independent sources to indicate notability, sources in the article are either not independent or substantial. Note that the "Yahoo Finance" ref is just a republished press release. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, sources clearly insufficient (blogs, adverts etc.). Google search did not yield any reliable sources either. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage to establish notability. The yahoo finance ref is just an accesswire press release, and the other sources are blogs and developers' sites. A search revealed incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:16, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BonaFide Studio[edit]

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

advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 01:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero sources. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:42, 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)} 11:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is an advertisement per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Tal Brenev (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADVERT →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 05:08, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rashaan Melvin[edit]

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

No indication that this individual meets WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to have played professionally and I'm not finding enough news-related articles to his college career to pass WP:GNG. Would be okay to userfy if someone wants to take custody as he's been on "injured reserves" and may play professionally in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 16 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)} 11:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:09, 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 Snowball close for WP:BLP concerns. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Kenny[edit]

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

After looking for reliable sources to expand this article, I have found very little to support her notability. Fails WP:BLPNOTE Flat Out let's discuss it 08:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this person is not notable. -- Alarics (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As mentioned above, no sign of notability. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Gryllida 09:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I picked up on this from a post on WP:ANI. I just spent a goodly amount of time digging for info about her. There is a substantial amount of articles and other media pieces that she is asked to comment on. However, that puts her in the "passing mention" sort of references. She's obviously high profile enough such that her opinion is sought for these articles, whether it be behavioural psychology, commentary on gossip mags/sites, etc but she's invariably not been the focus of the article and that is what is required for an article on her. Blackmane (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of real or lasting notability. Fails WP:ENT. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to delete this as SNOWy, but ran across this. I don't have access to the BMJ (I know, it's ridiculous) so I can't judge if there is enough material in there to support a BLP (which would have to say something about her career as a whole, not just about the "controversy", if that's what it was). DGG, can you read that article, if you have a moment, and see if that (and perhaps other news coverage--there are a couple of articles) carries her over any of the relevant thresholds here? If it doesn't, in your judgment, and you think this ought to be a SNOW delete, be my guest. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do have access to the BMJ article (McCartney M. The rise of the pop psychologists. BMJ 2012;344:e3541 doe:10.1136/bmj.e3541). The article does not support notability, nor can I find other sources to do so. Here's some information about the article in question:

"The media seem to have no problem finding psychiatrists and psychologists to comment on anything from celebrity behaviour on so called reality shows to whether Anders Breivik is sane. But is this good for public understanding of mental health, asks Margaret McCartney" (see HealthWatch)
It is in the OBSERVATIONS section of the Journal, so it is essentially an opinion piece.
"Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed."
The article is 10 paragraphs long. Two paragraphs mention Emma Kenny, with the second being to note that neither she nor another "frequent media commentator" mentioned in another paragraph are on the the British Psychological Society's list of “chartered psychologists" and that the "Society discourages direct psychological comment on the behaviour of celebrities but doesn’t enforce it.” JoeSperrazza (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe. Nonsenseferret, thanks for your kind offer, but I think this nails it well enough. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject meets neither WP:BASIC nor WP:ANYBIO. Miniapolis 00:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:41, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Lee Ferris[edit]

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

Non notable artist, unsourced, fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. LiberatorLX (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability, fails WP:GNG. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google books result above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you specify which source proves notability? This article is full of original research, has absolute no sources, and doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. LiberatorLX (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG & WP:ARTIST. 174.141.208.115 (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability standards, fails the WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST, no sources and everything appears to be original research. 2607:FE50:0:8202:6080:6D42:4BBA:8D41 (talk) 01:18, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fire camp[edit]

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

Zackmann08 (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per WP:AFD I am placing this at the top of the page. I am new around here and learning the process. The consensus seems to be that I went about this the wrong way. My apologies. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As no reason to delete has been supplied. The page in question is obviously a rough start but, per WP:IMPERFECT, that's ok. There seem to be plenty of handbooks and histories in the search links above which can be used to develop the topic. Andrew (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - no rationale for deletion has been provided whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not only no rationale for deletion, but also no indication that nominator understands WP:BEFORE. A quick search finds WP:RS including Los Angeles Times, KHTS-AM, Long Beach Press-Telegram, and Idaho Mountain Express and Guide, among others, using the term "fire camp" with no dificulty.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nomination withdrawn, somebody can close this now. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 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. And salted. Sandstein 12:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric West[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This joke again? How is West meant to be notable? Despite claims he didn't feature in 30 Rock, he didn't star in World War Z. He didn't release an album. He wasn't dating Christina Milian. He turns up at fashion shows. Being called one to watch (how long do we have to watch defore he does anything), a rising star (for how long), a style icon. Nothing notable. This is not a speedy delete as a repost as it uses some new references but they are once again not good references. Zimbio, not a reliable source, no depth of coverage. Vibe Vixen, not a reliable source, no depth of coverage. Q by Equinox, no depth of coverage. Twitter, enough said.
What's new since the last deletion? He didn't star in a movie and he got a few passing mentions in some non reliable sources. Nothing that makes him notable. Delete this yet again. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? I think you need to pick up an issue of Cosmopolitan magazine! How is this person not notable? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kEKh7GiPU] Matthew Fox who was also a lead wasn't even in WWZ. I could spend more time to edit this wiki, but to delete it is a joke. Alejandrad117 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and permanently salt Enough. No matter how much they do to pad their IMDb with 'member of the studio audience="appearance"' ridiculousness or use never-clicked MTV web series (in this case Hey Girl) to try to get notability, it isn't happening. He's an extra. Like in the last nomination just saying you might be on Smash doesn't mean you will be on Smash. And seriously, a YouTube link to him walking by a paparazzi camera? Why do I get the feeling a bit of renumeration was involved there to puff up sources, along with the Equinox piece which definitely seems like a non-editorial paid job? Stop gaming the system. Also just save it Alejanrad117, I know what's next; "Not famous Eric West? (random links of random pictures and random YouTube video of West in background of some event)" After about four AfD's of the same refutation pattern under numerous socks it's tiresome to see that response; let's actually try to make a point about why you feel the article should be kept. Nate • (chatter) 17:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video is actually from GettyImages [10]

It's ironic that someone who is photographed by paparazzi walking down the street would be a non-notable. [11]

I could reference his Instagram alone. [12].

GQ. Talks about him. http://www.gq.com/style/blogs/the-gq-eye/2013/11/the-most-shocking-celebrity-costumes-from-last-night.html and somehow your opinion on him makes him non-notable lol..... Confusing! Alejandrad117 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is made. Don't bother with the subject's Instagram, it's not only ineligible as a primary source but doesn't expand any knowledge about the subject. The GQ link is just 'he dressed like a nerd'. It certainly doesn't take Maureen Dowd to make that observation at all. Again, please make an actual argument to why this article should be kept. Nate • (chatter) 18:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point you fail to get is somehow someone that is talked about aby the world's most important men's magazine and followed by the paparazzi even on a subway train. You find non-notable. Sorry. That's a joke. [13] [14] sounds like you have a personal reason. Eric is far more notable that a lot of people with wiki pages. Alejandrad117 (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So non-notable that his song is #3 on rhapsody.. Again. A deletion is a joke.. [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandrad117 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The most ironic and idiotic thing about a deletion is that Eric West will be notable with or without a Wikipedia page. When the people above are saying it should be deleted, I find that odd. If someone is reading about Eric in GQ [16], InStyle [17], Bleu magazine [18], Vibe magazine (where he was named NEXT star of 2013) [19] or even with he makes the worst dressed list by Now magazine [20]

You're somehow telling me the MILLIONS of people that are reading about him in GQ, Vanity Fair, Cosmopolitan magazine, US Weekly, Vibe magazine, In Style, Now Magazine just to name a few.. means he is NON-notable. What a big joke! Alejandrad117 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bleu looks like one of those 'paid to wear our clothes for a story' titles that I never seem to find on a newsstand, and you cited a random piece in InStyle Germany which when translated doesn't even mention the subject pictured within the article's text, just some flowery text about buying whatever clothes he wore cheap. All of your sources are ineligible as either paid mentions or coming right off the subject's Facebook. One more time; Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Qik and whatever other social media accounts are in the control of the subject themselves are ineligible as primary sources that are not allowed to be used. Corbis is ineligible; it's video posted to a site you have to pay money to see, and I get the feeling that Jeannie Ortega, who has a sourceable career, was the actual target of the video. Same with FilmMagic, another paid photo service. And anyone these days can put their songs up on Rhapsody or Spotify and create a playlist showing an artist's song on top of the charts. Guess what? We don't source charts to Rhapsody, only true industry media such as Billboard. Stop persisting. I'm not arguing further with this, source with good editorial content, not whatever scraps you pull up from Google Image Search. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All you've said it "WHAT YOU BELIEVE" to get around the facts.... What you believe, does not change the fact of a cover story does it? What it looks like is a 'paid to wear our clothes' again does not change the fact it is a cover story. There is no rule that says what it or isn't notable because it's what you believe about a "cover story". Jeannie Oretga hasn't had a hit in YEARS. She doesn't even have 2,000 followers. [21]. And if anyone could create a playlist, wouldn't EVERYONE be on the rhapsody charts? It took one Twitter search.. [22]

Your argument is ridiculous. You're telling me, that someone in NUMEROUS national magazines around the globe isn't notable.... A JOKE! Alejandrad117 (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claim... Non-notable, but Wendy Williams mentioned him in Hot Topics... [23] and Bravo [24] and yahoo [25] and newspapers [26] I can go on.... for someone NON-Notable.. he seems to get a lot of attention. I can find 50 models with wiki pages who are not as notable as Eric. Alejandrad117 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time the subject's Instagram is non-sourcable. Those YouTube videos prove nothing (and the Wendy clip was already ruled an ineligible source in the fourth nom). Stop posting red carpet events, they are non-sourcable. I'm done engaging any longer with you and my rationale stands as-is. Nate • (chatter) 02:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't care what your opinion is. I don't have to change it. YouTube being a source or not... it doesn't change the fact that you're spending so much of your time trying to claim Eric West as NON-notable. It actually laughable when you look at ALL of the coverage surrounding one man who can't even walk down the street without being photographed by paparazzi ... I can't help but laugh... GQ, Vanity Fair, US Weekly, Wendy Williams, MTV, Cosmopolitan. You must have nothing better to. Alejandrad117 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And salt. Procedural. This subject has been deleted three times already. Enough is enough. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And salt. I concur with the nominator and Carrite. Finnegas (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on a couple of the text links touted above and saw nothing above the extremely humdrum. I watched a youtube in which somebody takes a lot of photos (which doesn't even consume 35mm film; electrons are cheap) of some bloke while not many other people look interested. This person seems to be mentioned in various places. So are hundreds of thousands of people. Delete. AfDs on him have already wasted enough time, so salt. (If he becomes article-worthy, then a new article on him can still be created, via the regular procedure.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 26 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 12:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bipolar Advantage[edit]

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

Declined prod. Self-published non-notable book. No discoverable independent reviews or citations. Fails WP:NBOOK. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bipolar Advantage and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Wootton. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Chicago Tribune article is little more than a passing mention, and there's nothing else on Google to indicate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of charting and not meeting GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:32, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planet-4D[edit]

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

I am unable to find any evidence that this topic has been discussed at all in any reliable sources that are independent of its creator Gilles Baroin (also on AfD). So it seems WP:TOOSOON to have an article on this topic, if ever. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's discussed in passing in arXiv:1208.4774, which is not by Baroin. But I don't think that's enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 5 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, Sandstein 20:24, 11 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 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:42, 12 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 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Arxiv paper mentioned above was by Amiot, a collaborator of Baroin, so independence is questionable. I was unable to find independent sources discussing this topic and so it seems to fail general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I agree that this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON for RS to develop. --Mark viking (talk) 18:54, 15 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 04:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least for now, until it gets enough reliable coverage to pass GNG.LM2000 (talk) 04:45, 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. 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: [27]) and is a global expert on sustainable development cited worldwide (mentions in serveral books: [28] ; mentioned in various papers: [29]). 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DS Game Maker[edit]

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

Non-notable game engine. None of the very few Google hits are reliable sources, and the article only lists primary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Utterly WP:NN product targeted at game-maker wannabees. A great example of why Wikipedia needs a speedy deletion criterion for articles about products that do not assert the product's notability. Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 18 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) 19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not meet WP:GNG notability standards. Found one book on the topic, listed below, but no other media coverage among reliable sources. This is an informative blog post, but blogs aren't considered reliable.

NDS Game Creation Using DS Game Maker - Practical Tips and Techniques. HobbyPRESS. 28 August 2010. ISBN 978-1-4537-2225-1.

––Agyle (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I can hardly see any material on the engine, mostly primary and discussions. The book appears to be a tutorial solely, but even if it was a GNG-worthy source, it's still just one. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horde3D (game engine)[edit]

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

Non-notable game engine. Google returns no reliable sources, and the sources provided in the article are all primary or unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Horde 3D engine is well know in the gaming community. It's used by

multiple independent game studios for commercial games like Redline rush! and Timelines: Assault on America
3D authoring utilities like OBI 3D Kamin-Viewer
University Classes to teach 3D engine development.

The problem here is not notability. It's that the article was just written and is lacking all of these details.Slacka123 (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article was also linked from list of game engines and waiting to be created before I created it. The engine also integrates with a large number of languages and interfaces with multiple programs. And also yields a significant number of search results with independent sources. BlitzGreg (talk) 18:30, 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) 19:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would advise adding some of these third party reliable sources, because I don't see any in the article currently, and I was not able to locate any. Notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter if multiple commercial games use it. Popularity is also a poor reason to keep non-notable software; it must be notable, not popular. Notability is not established by how many people discuss it forums. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found several dozen mentions of the game engine and how it was used in peer-reviewed journal articles and academic papers presented at conference proceedings, in English, Italian, German, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Hungarian scholarly publications. NinjaRobotPirate, you said "Google returns no reliable sources", which I'm guessing means you did a Google web search. Go to scholar.google.com and books.google.com and search for "horde3d" or "horde 3d" (with quotes), and you'll filter out a lot of the non-reliable-source references to the software you get doing a general web search. You could argue the reliable-source coverage isn't significant enough, but not that it doesn't exist. You and Slacka123 also point to the article's current lack of good reference citations, and while I agree it lacks them, that's explicitly improper grounds for article deletion, as explained in WP:BEFORE; the article's current state is fairly irrelevant if there are reliable sources with which it can be improved. ––Agyle (talk) 19:13, 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 Incubate. Moved to Draft:V-play (game engine) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V-play (game engine)[edit]

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

Not notable. No reliable sources mention it on Google. Sources provided in the article are entirely primary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 18 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) 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. A non-notable engine and I can't find any significant coverage other than primary sources, discussions or tutorials. It exists and games use it, but that's about it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as covered by numerous independent secondary and tertiary sources. BlitzGreg (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link them so we can discuss them? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlitzGreg, I searched and also found no reliable sources. Please post URLs that we can consider. ––Agyle (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft:V-play (game engine) as WP:TOOSOON. There's no reason to hide to remove this content from view, as it doesn't contain COPYVIO nor BLP stuff, but the sources don't establish notability and are not particularly reliable. That could change in the future, as there is evidence that the engine is used by several independent third parties. Diego (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- software article of unclear notability. of the provided references, most are developers' sites, incidental mentions, or blogs. The pocketgamer.biz link is the only substantial coverage, and they self-describe as 'an ideal environment to promote your business agenda via advertising and sponsored editorial.', so not RS. A search did not reveal additional RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What benefit do you expect from this content being hidden, accessible only to administrators? If it's preserved as a draft, somebody may be able to use it as a starting point to prove notability, or reuse its content elsewhere at any of the articles under Wikiproject free software. Diego (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Various arguments for and against preserving content found not sufficiently notable for inclusion are discussed at Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Briefly, I take a deletionist position with regard to extant or recent software articles, which are particularly prone to promotional use; there is no shortage of other internet sources of information on game making software. If you would like to discuss this further, we can do so on my talk page. Per the V-play article, V-play has a monthly billing pricing model, so I don't see how content from this article would be relevant to Wikiproject free software.Dialectric (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qt and QML, on which V-play is based, are free software (that can be dual-licensed). What I was asking is the benefit you see in making the content of this particular article removed from view. Draft articles aren't part of the encyclopedia, and are not indexed nor followed by search engines, so they are less prone to promotional abuse. Diego (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to Draft:V-play (game engine). Not notable. I failed to find reliable sources among books and academic publications, and I don't consider any citations within the current Wikipedia article to be reliable sources (see WP:RS if you're wondering what this means). I did not do significant web search, and may have missed important magazine or other news references.

Diego Moya, turning the question above around, your approach of moving articles to draft rather than deleting seems unusual, and I wonder if you can point to any Wikipedia guidelines, essays, or discussions on the topic. I'm not suggesting it's bad, and given the ever-diminishing cost of data storage it sounds like it has merit, but I'd be curious to read other opinions.

––Agyle (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't consider any citations within the current Wikipedia article to be reliable sources" -- Pocket Gamer is reliable, see WP:VG/RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it is reliable. To clarify, the 'pocket gamer' listed on WP:VG/RS appears to be a different publication than the subject of the article - countries of publication, format (web vs print), publisher, and even focus (handheld vs. mobile) are all different. As I noted above,as a ref in the site used in the article we're discussing, pocketgamer.biz, has an explicitly promotion-oriented editorial policy, as does its parent company Steel Media. If opening a thread at WP:VG/RS to sort this out would help, I can do that.Dialectric (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I didn't realize you also meant the entire site is not an RS. .biz is Pocket Gamer's industry-oriented online counterpart. Same publisher -- Steel Media, it's focus is quote both "mobile and handheld", and it's country of publication is UK for both (although I'm not sure it matters on the Internet). The thing VG/RS hasn't discussed is online vs offline. The quote you took is from their advertisement page[30] (banners and such) not their about/editorial policy page[31] for articles. I doubt it wouldn't (for .biz explicitly) pass the VG/RS bar, but we can open a discussion. In any case, it's an interview/primary and irrelevant for GNG in this case, so I'm not too bothered besides sorting this out for the future. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your pointing it out Hell. Definitely confusing...in 2007 Wikipedia said the magazine, published by Imagine Media, was defunct, with no indication how long. It's not clear what the connection is/was between Imagine Media (original publisher of original American magazine) and Steel Media (current publisher of new UK magazine). "Imagine Media, the American publishing arm of the publicly traded British company Future Networks"...it seems quite possible they're related as corporate siblings or something. But anyway, yeah, whether we count that cite as RS or not, by itself, wouldn't change the AfD question for me. ––Agyle (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Agyle: the Draft space is too new to have any guideline specific about it. However, WP:PRESERVE is an approved policy that covers this precise situation - verifiable facts that would belong in a finished should be retained, not hidden. The existence of the game engine is easily verified with the references provided - even if this game engine does not become notable, those references could be used at a wider topic article in a section covering this type of software. Diego (talk) 22:10, 26 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, after good effort made to determine notability. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne deWolfe[edit]

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

I can't confirm notability and am having trouble even with verifying the claims or even treating some of claims entirely seriously. Being on a top 100 list for 7 months, even if it's true, is not an "award", and I can't figure out how to verify such a thing anyway. When I Google K.I.S.S. Award at Romantic Times, or Cameo Award and exclude results that mention deWolfe, there are fewer than 30 entries each, generally about just a couple of other writers, leading me to conclude that the awards themselves aren't notable. (Spelling out "knight in shining silver award" doesn't help much.) I see nothing about Readers' Choice Awards on the Avon Books website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating articles about a book and a book series for which I also don't find much.

Velvet lies
Wild Texas Nights

—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Romance seems a tricky genre for which to show notability, for historical reasons relating to reader gender, publisher ghettoization, and lack of mainstream attention. By Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists, this page would not seem out of place here List_of_romantic_novelists, although even by that standard quite weakly sourced.Kschlot1 (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll say offhand that most of the stuff on award section don't count towards notability. Sales figures mean nothing when it comes to notability on Wikipedia. Good sales make it more likely something would gain coverage, but it's never guaranteed and I've seen NYT bestsellers get zero attention. Heck, I've seen authors regularly hit the NYTBL and still never gain enough coverage to get an article for themselves, so sales mean nothing regardless of where it is, although I'll say that Amazon sales always seem to be gained more easily because they have such small categories that make it easier for people to say they're a bestseller in one category or another. Now as far as the Romantic Times stuff goes, the "editor's pick" just means that it was a book that was reviewed that the reviewer really liked. It looks a lot better than the normal stuff, but in the end it'd be considered essentially the same as if it was a regular review since this isn't an award or recognition that would give absolute notability. The same goes for awards given by the RT. The awards would count towards notability but they're not the type of award that would keep an article on that award alone. However the problem with the RT awards is that a mass of RT awards wouldn't really be considered to be enough to keep on that basis alone as far as our guidelines go. Now if she'd won the RITA Award, this would be a completely different story since that's a very prestigious award, but deWolfe didn't win and nominations don't give notability. Only wins give notability. So far all we have to go by are a large amount of awards by one specific trade outlet. The awards are respected, but they're sort of the type that would count towards notability but not absolute notability. I'll see if I can find anything out there, but so far there isn't a huge amount of stuff going in the author's favor and the page as a whole is reading like a puff page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of small categories, I'm guessing that the categories must have been dwindling at RT because I notice that the number of sub-sub-genres under the Historical Romance subgenre fell evenly from 14 in 1995 to none in 2013. Anyway, well done, because I for some reason wasn't able to find the award history section on the RT site when I'd looked. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a search, I couldn't really find anything that would show that deWolfe passes WP:NAUTHOR. I'd initially thought she had won a RT award, but she hasn't. ([32]) deWolfe was only nominated. The Calico Trails Magazine doesn't really seem to be the type of place where an award would mean anything on here, not even partial notability. Now a RWA award does help, but the problem is that this is a chapter award and not an award given from the larger organization, which does make a huge difference. That makes this the type of award that would give a little notability but isn't something that would give a huge amount of notability. In the end all we have are a handful of reviews from one location (RT) and a review from a local chapter of RWA. There's just not enough here to show a depth of coverage enough to where she'd pass. If anyone can dig anything up, that's great. I'll edit the article in the meantime to remove all of the puffery and clearly promotional intent in anticipation of someone finding something. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I'm cleaning up some alternate text I'd left down here. In any case, I forgot to say that the books should be deleted as well. They're not independently notable outside of the author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know much about the Romantic genre but agree with Tokyogirl79's assessment and unable to find anything compelling enough to justify a Keep vote. Typically the authors themselves will post the best reviews on their website, which is the case here, but the review sources are mostly unreliable or Romantic Times. Also tangentially the number of user holdings at LibraryThing is pretty low, while not a reason to delete it does strongly suggest the author is not notable, and time consuming searches in commercial databases would probably be fruitless. -- GreenC 07:19, 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 Los Angeles Galaxy#Club culture. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LA Riot Squad[edit]

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

unencyclopedic trivia. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Los Angeles Galaxy#Club culture - not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in article establish notability; meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Los Angeles Galaxy#Club culture - not independently notable. Fenix down (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Los Angeles Galaxy#Club culture JMHamo (talk) 01:46, 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. The "keep" arguments are insufficient when weighed from a policy standpoint - all of the sources were determined by others in the discussion as being insufficient to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BP Logix[edit]

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

A promotional article that violates WP:NOT. Additionally I don't believe the awards are adequate to confirm notability, though the analyst reports may be. Network Products Guide is a pay for play award. Once the promotion is trimmed, there would only be 2-3 sentences left. Practically speaking it would be better to have a blank slate. CorporateM (Talk) 01:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has the same structure as many other company pages. I removed the reference to Network Products Guide, as this reference is not necessary. There are many other analyst reports and highly coveted awards that meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) 02:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Darkwind (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the additional editing performed, and promotional words removed, this article now stands on its own. Open to any additional edits that may be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources confirming notability. Examples are CIO Magazine article, KMWorld, and Federal Computer Week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) 22 January 2014

These appear to be brief mentions and blurbs. Generally we need articles where BP Logix is the subject of the entire article. See WP:CORPDEPTH. BTW - if you are affiliated with BP Logix, you should disclose it and avoid voting on issues where you have a conflict of interest. CorporateM (Talk) 18:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second all of these points, except that I think it's fine for folks with a COI to participate in AfD discussions. If disclosed, the COI status can be taken into account by the closing admin. --Mark viking (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first example is about BPM not BP Logix. The second looks like a brief report of a BP Logix press release. The third is a brief mention on page 3 of a 4-page article about BPM. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep content is informative, references are relevant. Not that this is the threshold, but I see many other company pages that are far less neutral and edifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltkpat (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 January 2014
Keep as notability also exists with several analyst reports on the company and the industry's most important recognition with Workflow Management Coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 January 2014

— Duplicate !vote: IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.—Darkwind (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator should note that the comment immediately above is the second !vote for this editor in this discussion. Also, IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) has not edited outside this topic. - tucoxn\^talk 04:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of Wikipedia:Notability. The 6 accessible sources in the article contain just brief mentions of BP Logix. We need to see significant coverage. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not pass the relevant guideline for articles about companies: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The sources are not reliable sources and all the KMWorld Magazine sources are not independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 04:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I've done a bit of searching myself, and there doesn't seem to be much independent coverage. KMWorld seems too ghetto and their articles look too much like barely edited press releases to be considered independent coverage. The CIO.com and FCW.com articles only have a brief mention of Logix. The product may have notable or even numerous customers, but we can't yet write about it in Wikipedia per WP:GNG. There is one in-depth review on bpm.com, but I'm not sure what to make of that site; there's no indication of owners on some "about us" page etc., just a blank "contact us" form; it does smell a bit of astroturfing. It seems that the field of business process management software doesn't get much attention in the more generalist computing press, at least not at the level of product/company coverage. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Someone not using his real name. Nathanial Palmer is an analyst-type in the BPM space and a strong reliable source. If 1 more like that can be found, I would say they pass WP:CORP, though it can still be considered for deletion for being generally misleading and promotional (the analyst reports are obviously selectively quoted for example and that is misleading to readers). CorporateM (Talk) 15:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the field myself to evaluate that claim with certainty; there's a bio blurb about Palmer on KMWorld which says he was executive director of Workflow Management Coalition, so he appears somewhat authoritative per WP:SPS. As Ltkpat says below, there's also a 7-page report about BP Logix from Forrester Research [33], which does indeed indicate some notability. Hoovers also covers the company [34] (article is paywalled as usual). There's also an interview on ZDNet with one of the BP Logix execs [35], but it's clearly marked as a piece sponsored by BP Logix. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Forrester Report is an industry standard. Informative report and covers competitors and overall current state of BPM players. Took a look at other BPM companies - Appian is a competitor, but has similar (and less independent) coverage in their entry. Nathaniel Palmer, also cited, is an independent BPM expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltkpat (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Ltkpat (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.—Darkwind (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ltkpat, for your info', it's quite common for articles that don't fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines to sit on Wikipedia, simply because no one has taken the trouble to nominate them for deletion. So, your observation about Appian will likely be ignored by the closer of this discussion (per wp:otherstuff). Finding another strong source of significant coverage like Palmer's piece is probably the best way forward. Also, only one "keep" or "delete" WP:!vote per person is usually made in these discussions, so would you consider changing your extra "Supports" to "Comments" to help the closer easily and quickly assess the number of different views? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please do to avoid confusing. I think that's the third time Ltkpat voted Keep in the AfD discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 16:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually if you search for their old name Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, you can find more coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, e.g. this 2001 piece in Computerworld (web version). Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked through all the Google/Books/Scholar and JSTOR results and found no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - just listings and press release reprints and paraphrases. Like CM, I'll change my vote if someone turns up another piece of significant independent coverage on a par with the Nathaniel Palmer piece. The article will need further depuffing, though. (Ping me if that happens.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been further depuffed. Besides the Computerworld piece and Forrester write up mentioned by others above, here is another example of independent coverage in Integrated Developer News: ([36]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngridAndrews (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every source, ioncluding the Computerworld article, is pure promotionalism. and based on PR. Any material in Computerworld on a particular application or a particular product that is not a full formal review can safely be assumed to be based on PR. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:53, 27 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) 10:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Winberry[edit]

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

Looks like a nice school project. Numerous people on the talk page contesting speedy deletion. Aside from that nonsense, the page fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF JakenBox (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest he is in any way notable. Seems like a joke: "Rumors have it that he will win a Nobel Prize in economics." - Headwes (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and low bar for professors. A young instructor, it would seem. Certainly not adverse to a restart of the piece if that Nobel Prize in Economics materializes, but let's politely call that WP:CRYSTAL for now. Carrite (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps just a teenie weenie bit too soon... --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a subtle attack page written out of malice. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in the citation record or elsewhere that can be used to support a pass of WP:PROF yet. I removed some problematic material from the article so that it at least doesn't look like a joke at his expense. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no credible claim of notability, nor any evidence of the reliable and verifiable sources that would be needed to establish that claim. Alansohn (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sounds like a beloved TA getting support from his students. See you in 10 years! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:10, 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. Notable TV show. And procedural keep for no rational mentioned. WP:Non-admin closure §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jassi Jaissi Koi Nahin[edit]

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

∆ nbmatt 00:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No rationale for deletion is presented (not sure what the 'Delta' sign is supposed to imply...). In any case, this is clearly a notable article subject. --Soman (talk) 15:42, 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.